Interesting Comment by Lakewood PD

imported post

Mainsail wrote:

just_a_car wrote:

heywoodjablowme wrote:

Mainsail wrote:

What if it was one of us, openly carrying- someone harasses us so we walk away- guess what, now you’re being chased! It’s all a matter of perception. The other officer didn’t need any clarification; he decided that if a citizen was armed, a law was being broken.

JohnnyLaw seems to have understood my point.

Click to expand...

So your saying that any one OC is exempt from any report of a supposed crime? I mean buy a supposed, Report of a gun. I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. This report is only what you have interpreted. No one here can back up what you have heard. As you heard it on the HAM. Not to suggest it didn't happen the way you said it, but you are the only one to report it. Like I said before, just cause you OC doesnt mean that police responding to calls makes you a victim. Granted some LEO's overeact, Im giving the benifiet of the doubt to the LWPD..

Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with everything else, but don't go saying Mainsail was even possibly lying or telling half-truths. We all understand he's only human and could make a mistake here and there. He's also doing us all a service by keeping us appraised on what he hears over his scanner. I believe we're all capable of accepting something we read on the internet with a grain of salt; fortunately, I trust Mainsail's material to be truthful 'to the best of his knowledge', as I've met him and shaken his hand on many occasions (read: monthly get-togethers). If you know what to look for, it's amazing what you can learn from a man from his handshake (I say man for a reason, as women are not the same when it comes to handshakes, from my experience).

Click to expand...

I’vemethim. 20 posts; each one exponentially moresmarter andintulectual with absolutely nothing butinformative or useful information. At his current rate of wisdom, he should completelytake overin a few weeks. Hopefully the moderators will deletemy account and save us all the grief.

Click to expand...

21

imported post

I find no fault in the way the police handled this. In fact if they are going out to investigate an armed robbery and see me walking down the street open carrying, they have reasonable articulable suspicion to detain me, as a matter of law.

You could be detained and checked out if in the area of a robbery without your weapon.

imported post

Mainsail I got your point. I understand a man with a gun is not a crime even though some Lakewood Police Officer thinks it is. I think you missed my point. A man running from a mall with others in pursuit is suspicious to say the least. I agree things are not always as they seem thus my analogy to jogging. Perhaps the dispatcher over reacted perhaps not. In any event someone had the good sense to call in and ask what the crime they were responding to was. TheMWG may have been being assaulted or he may have committed some dastardly deed. Or it might have just been a bunch of people out for a run. But they did get a call about it. It sounds like at least one LEO was trying to figure out what was going on before they gotto the sceneand made a bad decision. Good for him, right move.

Not knowing if the BG was the lone MWG or the group chasing him were the bad guys or all of them or none of them a multi unit response seems reasonable. So other than the LEO who thinks visibly carrying a gun is a crime where did the others go wrong? We don't know the urgency in the voice of the 911 caller or how he described the event to the dispatcher. I am usually pretty tough on LEOs so what am I missing on this one?

imported post

Okay, someone correct me if I am wrong here. Lakewood cop with limited information to go on, says "A citizen saw the gun so we know it is a crime" This is then taken to mean that anytime a citizen sees an exposed gun, the cops will consider it a criminal act. The cops expect gun=crime? That's how I read it anyway.

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

Okay, someone correct me if I am wrong here. Lakewood cop with limited information to go on, says "A citizen saw the gun so we know it is a crime" This is then taken to mean that anytime a citizen sees an exposed gun, the cops will consider it a criminal act. The cops expect gun=crime? That's how I read it anyway.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

imported post

What I heard was all the police heard, so all they knew was that someone called in to report they were chasing a man with a gun. The caller assumed there was a robbery because he saw a gun. Since I listen to their radio a lot, I often hear these types of situations; where what is reported is very far from what actually happened or is happening. (remember the rifles in Wright Park call?) In this case there was no victim calling in, and the officer wanted dispatch to call around and find one so they could establish what the crime was. The other officer then made his comment. The first officer was pretty wise to ask for some clarification. He realized that he and his fellow officers were responding priority (lights and sirens) to a situation with very few details. The officer who was running red lights and racing through the streets of Lakewood wanted to know, before they confronted someone while all pumped up with adrenaline, what exactly was the crime for which they were responding.

After the fact we found out there actually was a robbery, and so their actions appear to be justified. I think that’s where the confusion comes from. If you view it after the fact, you get a very different picture than the officers had when the comments were made.

What I think is the important lesson in this is that what gets reported to the police is often difficult for the dispatcher to relay to the officer reliably. Remember, the caller does not talk to the responding officer or officers. There’s going to be at least two other middlemen before he gets his information; the comm. Officer who takes the call, and the dispatcher. The same can happen to us when some skittish citizen reports us as a M(or W)WAG.

For example, say I’m in the coffee shop sipping my cappuccino. I get a call on the phone that a friend is in an accident so I hurriedly leave. Someone outside sees me leave, moving faster than a normal person, and that there’s a .45 on my belt. They call the police and report a possible robbery, all the while following me as I fast-walk a couple blocks back to my car. Following and chasing are not all that different, and the caller will very likely embellish.

imported post

Okay, here's the straight up scoop.

The call initially was dispatched as; SUBJ W/GUN...H/M (HISPANIC MALE) RED JKT HOODED, RAN TWDS BPW. (BRIDGEPORT WAY), BELIEVED TO HAVE ROBBED A RESTAURANT IN THE PLAZA, SEVERAL SUBJS IN PURSUIT.

Minutes later it was learned that the subject grabbed a small jar with money (used to pay for the after dinner mints) off the counter of the LaPalma restaurant. An employee confronted the bg, who pointed a semi-auto atthe employee's face. Bg fled and employee and several other people chased him. The bg was captured minutes later nearby, but had thrown the gun, which was not found.

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

Okay, here's the straight up scoop.

The call initially was dispatched as; SUBJ W/GUN...H/M (HISPANIC MALE) RED JKT HOODED, RAN TWDS BPW. (BRIDGEPORT WAY), BELIEVED TO HAVE ROBBED A RESTAURANT IN THE PLAZA, SEVERAL SUBJS IN PURSUIT.

Minutes later it was learned that the subject grabbed a small jar with money (used to pay for the after dinner mints) off the counter of the LaPalma restaurant. An employee confronted the bg, who pointed a semi-auto atthe employee's face. Bg fled and employee and several other people chased him. The bg was captured minutes later nearby, but had thrown the gun, which was not found.

Click to expand...

All I have to say is "SEVERAL SUBJS IN PURSUIT"? There is a case of several nitwits trying to get shot. Only an idiot chases someone with a gun. Well, cops excluded because it's their job but for a citizen.................................FELONY STUPID!