• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Rate this LEO encounter

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
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.
 

VAopencarry

Regular Member
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
2,151
Location
Berryville-ish, VA
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?
 

Prophet

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2008
Messages
544
Location
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

murphy2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
143
Location
, ,
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.
 

CharlesAFerg

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
64
Location
Portland/Beaverton/Hillsboro, Oregon, USA
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.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
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.
 

cce1302

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
265
Location
South Bend, Indiana, USA
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?
 

hsmith

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Messages
1,687
Location
Virginia USA, ,
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.
 

Sheriff

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
1,968
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

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. :)
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
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. :)
 
Top