Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Rate this LEO encounter

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    A good friend of mine who is a Deputy Sheriff was telling me about an incident that happened a few weeks ago around here. He was not the LEO but was laughing about it. Remember that in South Carolina, Open Carry is not an option.

    It seems that they got a call from the local Wal-Mart about a man with a gun. When the police arrived they found the fellow was carrying his gun IWB but with the grip fully exposed. he had made no effort to conceal the grip only the barrel of the gun. They approached him and asked for ID etc. It turned out that the had a CWP but evidently just did not understand what concealed meant. They explained to him that in SC that they gun had to be completely concealed and if not he could be charged and arrested. The fellow carried his gun out to his car and returned to his shopping. The officer made a report but did not arrest the fellow and returned to his rounds.

    About two hours later this same LEO revceived another MWAG call from a different store. When he arrived it was the same fellow and he still had the grip of his gun exposed. This time the officer explained the concept of concealed carry to the man and told him that the next person to do any explaining about concealed carry would be a judge. He again did not arrest him but let him off with a stern verbal warning.

    How would you rate the encounter? I keep hearing all this about LEO confrontation but this seems more the norm around here.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Pretty impressive on the officer's part.I guess it depends where you're from. I think that's how it shouldgo, but around hereyou have a better chance of seeing Elvis and Moses rocking out together in a UFO.We get this instead: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum14/5200.html

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    I'll waitto hear about"strike 3" to comment much, other than the officer must be a very patient man. :shock:

  4. #4
    Regular Member VAopencarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The 'Dena, Mаяуlaпd
    Posts
    2,147

    Post imported post

    It's nice to see the Deputy had patience and didn't jack the guy up for being a bit of a dummy. But how stupid is this guy? I don't know if I wouldl have let him walk the 2d time. Maybe the guy didn't speak English as his first language?
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

  5. #5
    Regular Member Prophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    544

    Post imported post

    If I was the LEO i would've arrested him the second time. Basicallythe LEOgave the guy a break, is one of those good LEO's people see every now and again, and the guy responded by saying, "F-you copper, i hear what you're saying but i don't give a flying F, so go back to the station and cram your pie hole full of donuts". So i give the LEO a good grade on this situation but I give the guy carrying an F.

    Now, before all the absolutists get on my arse for saying a cop should drop the hammer lets take it away from a firearm issue and put it this way: If a state trooper pulls a guy over for doing 75 in a 55 but the guy says he didn't see the sign and didn't know the speed limit dropped and the Trooper lets him off with a warning, only to have the guy speed away at 75 mph again, should the Trooper give him another warning? Of course not. I say the same goes in this situation.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Well said, Prophet.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Sounds like my kinda cop; but it took mea little thinking to sortout that answer.

    One reaction I had was Prophet's position.

    After thinking it over a bit, it occurs to me that a violation of CC-only is malum prohibitum. Meaning it is bad only because the law says so, not because it is inherently wrong in some way. And not only is violating CC-onlymalum prohibitum, but it is operating up against the basic human right of self-defense. Itmeans the only people who are allowed this right outside of work or home are those who have gotten permission from the government.

    I'm thinking I like the officer's patience generally, and I like the officer's patience on this exact subject.

    Now, if we can just get the BATFE to use similar judgment and patience.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    143

    Post imported post

    There is a good man and cop. I would back his kind up any day. The country needs men like him or women, if such is the case. The guy CCing needs to rethink his actions.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Portland/Beaverton/Hillsboro, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    Although I don't agree with the donuts stereotype comment, I agree with your overall point much more than the other responses. I don't think that would be considered harsh at all, I think it would be much better than what most police usually end up doing anyways.

    Prophet wrote:
    If I was the LEO i would've arrested him the second time. Basicallythe LEOgave the guy a break, is one of those good LEO's people see every now and again, and the guy responded by saying, "F-you copper, i hear what you're saying but i don't give a flying F, so go back to the station and cram your pie hole full of donuts". So i give the LEO a good grade on this situation but I give the guy carrying an F.

    Now, before all the absolutists get on my arse for saying a cop should drop the hammer lets take it away from a firearm issue and put it this way: If a state trooper pulls a guy over for doing 75 in a 55 but the guy says he didn't see the sign and didn't know the speed limit dropped and the Trooper lets him off with a warning, only to have the guy speed away at 75 mph again, should the Trooper give him another warning? Of course not. I say the same goes in this situation.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    CharlesAFerg wrote:
    Although I don't agree with the donuts stereotype comment, I agree with your overall point much more than the other responses. I don't think that would be considered harsh at all, I think it would be much better than what most police usually end up doing anyways.

    Prophet wrote:
    If I was the LEO i would've arrested him the second time. Basicallythe LEOgave the guy a break, is one of those good LEO's people see every now and again, and the guy responded by saying, "F-you copper, i hear what you're saying but i don't give a flying F, so go back to the station and cram your pie hole full of donuts". So i give the LEO a good grade on this situation but I give the guy carrying an F.

    Now, before all the absolutists get on my arse for saying a cop should drop the hammer lets take it away from a firearm issue and put it this way: If a state trooper pulls a guy over for doing 75 in a 55 but the guy says he didn't see the sign and didn't know the speed limit dropped and the Trooper lets him off with a warning, only to have the guy speed away at 75 mph again, should the Trooper give him another warning? Of course not. I say the same goes in this situation.
    :? Prophet wasn't supporting the donut stereotype but rather using it to describe the obviously dismissive attitude of the citizen to whom the LEO talked.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    South Bend, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    260

    Post imported post

    I'd have to wonderwhether the MWAG was trying to precipitate a legal battle. Do you think he wanted to take it to court, or draw attention to SC's prohibition of open carry?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Noblesville, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post


  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    The cop handled it right the first time, the guy lucked out the second time. I do think OC should be legal everywhere, but it isn't - sadly.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Prophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    544

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    :? Prophet wasn't supporting the donut stereotype but rather using it to describe the obviously dismissive attitude of the citizen to whom the LEO talked.
    True story. I was speaking through the voice of the guy without respect to the LEO and the break he gave em.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Sheriff wrote:
    Let's not put the cart before the horse, OK? It's kinda obvious that this deputy was having a rather good day for some reason. Seems like he didn't want some silly arrest over something next to nothing messing his day up. Had the deputy been having a bad day, this entire thing could have gone a different direction from the first call he responded to. And had the man been real mouthy with the deputy, it could have gone a different direction from the very beginning too of course.
    Maybe the deputy is just a nice guy who is more focused on being a "peace officer" than a "law enforcement officer", the kind of cop who was the norm 30 years ago. Actually, I am going to choose to believe that because there have to some of those guys left and there is no reason to believe that this incident was only the result of the deputy having a good day. Also, it makes me feel good to believe that is the case.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •