Refused to disarm

imported post

Here are a few more wrinkles to toss into the debate.



At what point does the liability of surrendering a firearm transfer from me to the officer? If the officer who takes my weapon and isn’t familiar with it causes a ND while trying to clear it. . .will the DA want to charge ME because the officer was a klutz or didn’t realize my glock has a 3.5 trigger vs. a 5 lbs trigger? What assurances do I have as a non LEO that any damage caused to my firearm while in the care/custody & control of the officer will be reimbursed should that officer drop it or otherwise damage it.



I don’t even want to contemplate the questions and grilling I would get if the officer manages to shoot himself vis a vie a ND and now there is a dead officer, MY firearm laying next to him/her and me sitting there with a mess in my shorts.

imported post

ChinChin wrote:

Here are a few more wrinkles to toss into the debate.



At what point does the liability of surrendering a firearm transfer from me to the officer? If the officer who takes my weapon and isn’t familiar with it causes a ND while trying to clear it. . .will the DA want to charge ME because the officer was a klutz or didn’t realize my glock has a 3.5 trigger vs. a 5 lbs trigger? What assurances do I have as a non LEO that any damage caused to my firearm while in the care/custody & control of the officer will be reimbursed should that officer drop it or otherwise damage it.



I don’t even want to contemplate the questions and grilling I would get if the officer manages to shoot himself vis a vie a ND and now there is a dead officer, MY firearm laying next to him/her and me sitting there with a mess in my shorts.

Click to expand...

And this sort of thing will inevitably happen, just as sure as deputies shoot homeowners in the back.
:dude:

imported post

ChinChin wrote:

Here are a few more wrinkles to toss into the debate.

At what point does the liability of surrendering a firearm transfer from me to the officer? If the officer who takes my weapon and isn’t familiar with it causes a ND while trying to clear it. . .will the DA want to charge ME because the officer was a klutz or didn’t realize my glock has a 3.5 trigger vs. a 5 lbs trigger? What assurances do I have as a non LEO that any damage caused to my firearm while in the care/custody & control of the officer will be reimbursed should that officer drop it or otherwise damage it.

I don’t even want to contemplate the questions and grilling I would get if the officer manages to shoot himself vis a vie a ND and now there is a dead officer, MY firearm laying next to him/her and me sitting there with a mess in my shorts.

Click to expand...

This is speculation that has been kicked around here often. The push that a LEO cannot safely handle my gun and could hurt someone by touching it.

Guns are all the same....they have a trigger and when you pull it no matter how hair trigger it may be... it goes off. Therefore... you keep your finger off the trigger.

Officers are NOT in the habit of pointing a stranger's gun at themselves and then sticking their finger on the trigger guard.

If you are looking for justification to STOP officers from removing guns from citizens because someone could be harmed....

We are going to have to stop doing traffic stopsand family fights as far more officers are hurt in these situations.

Just because it could be dangerous... does not mean it should no longer be done.


However.... you as the gun owner would not be held liable if the officer did shoot themselves with your gun.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

ThunderRanch wrote:

I'll ask the question again since it was ignored by the LEO's.

Of all the traffic stops, nation wide, what percentage result in the officer being shot? And of those shootings, how many occurred AFTER the officer had been informed by the person in the car that they were armed? Or, to use LEO229's example, what percentage are cars full of gang bangers at 1AM?

I'm certain one response is "How many officers getting shot is too many?" My answer there is one officer getting shot is one too many. But by the same logic, how many law abiding citizen's rights being trampled is too many? Same Answer. One law abiding citizen's rights being trampled, even in the interest of "officer safety", is one too many. There has to be some middle ground here and I don't feel we have found it!

Click to expand...

http://www.nleomf.com/TheMemorial/facts.htm

This is not going to be traffic stop specific.....

On average...

167 deaths per year

57,558 assaults per year

Shot to death
2007 - 68
2006- 54
2005 - 60
2004 - 59
2003 - 50
2002 - 60
2001 - 72
2000 - 53
1999 - 46
1998 - 63


OK... Remember the 57,558 assaults????

Those include cops that were shot at or shot and hit but did not DIE!! With the common usage of body armor officers are surviving many of these attacks.

So just because the total number of officers getting killed is small... it does not mean that citizensare not trying to kill them.

So we havealmost 60,000 officers having their "rights" to remain uninjured trampled onby citizens.

But I am not sure we shouldreally be trying to compare cop deaths tosomeone's rights.

An officercanviolate your "rights" without any evil intent at all and you are not likely to die from it.

But a citizenpulling out a handgun, pointing it at the officer, and intentionally pulling the trigger is a deliberate actwith the intent to cause serious injury or death.

Apples and Oranges here....

[line]

What is comes down to is this.... Cops legitimately fear being harmed while on the job. Certain situations will carry a greater risk. Someone armed with a handgun can be a great concern.

Remembering that almost 60,000 officers are attacked each yearthey need to do what they can to avoid this.

Stoppingcitizens can seem to be a non-event. Until you discover...

• The car they are inis stolen and not yet reported
• They are wanted
• There is a body in the trunk
• Theyjust committed a serious crime not reported yet
• They have drugs or drug money
• They are seeing things that are not there
• They see the police as aliens that need to be stopped

So part of the problem is that many here only view police contact with them as "The cop stopping a law abiding citizen" who is armed. But the cop does not know yet and in the back of his mind will be thinking about the 57,588 assaults on cops last year and if today... he will be part of that statistic for the current year.

Click to expand...

Those numbers are skewed beyond any rational belief 229.
The simple fact is that 80% of those assaults are assaults in name only. Suspect brushes the officers hand away, or pushes him or pokes his finger at his nose, etc.

It's like the arrest numbers given at checkpoints. They include every ticket given for any Micky mouse offense (Dead inspection or tags, light out..etc) These are listed as arrests.

imported post

peter nap wrote:

Those numbers are skewed beyond any rational belief 229.
The simple fact is that 80% of those assaults are assaults in name only. Suspect brushes the officers hand away, or pushes him or pokes his finger at his nose, etc.

It's like the arrest numbers given at checkpoints. They include every ticket given for any Micky mouse offense (Dead inspection or tags, light out..etc) These are listed as arrests.

Click to expand...

Hey Peter,

If you can find me some data to back that.. I will go with it. But as I said... many of those mickey mouse assaults do not get reported.

I can bet that a great many more of those assaults are real attacks. Head butts, fights, weapons, fists... I have seen it happen.

I cannot break them down but the point is that people assault the police no matter how insignificant so the officer needs to keep his guard up.

Posting the numbers was not to prove anything but the officer needs to be aware and not become complacent or he can and will be attacked at some time. His being aware will minimize the damage done.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

This is speculation that has been kicked around here often. The push that a LEO cannot safely handle my gun and could hurt someone by touching it.

Guns are all the same....they have a trigger and when you pull it no matter how hair trigger it may be... it goes off. Therefore... you keep your finger off the trigger.

Officers are NOT in the habit of pointing a stranger's gun at themselves and then sticking their finger on the trigger guard.

If you are looking for justification to STOP officers from removing guns from citizens because someone could be harmed....

We are going to have to stop doing traffic stopsand family fights as far more officers are hurt in these situations.

Just because it could be dangerous... does not mean it should no longer be done.


However.... you as the gun owner would not be held liable if the officer did shoot themselves with your gun.

Click to expand...

But it DOES happen.

Lee Paige (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj4yUpR1PB0) had his finger in the trigger guard, shot himself.

Sarasota Detective shoots himself and partner. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkrkPpIeasY

Vegas famale officer's ND at a cuffed suspect on the deck. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd_pgcmI490

The point of all this is officers are not infallible. They can have a ND just the same as any other person. It is not my stance that this disqualifies an officer from ever securing a weapon for his/her safety; just that such should ONLY be done if there is a legit reason. Yes it may be a rare occasion that an "oopsy" happens, but as has always been said; the more you needlessly handle a firearm, the more the statistical chance that discharge happens.

I'd also want some assurance that anything that happens AFTER my firearm leaves my control isn't my responsibility to answer for later; which you seem to indicate would in fact be the case.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

These are more serious assaults that warrant charges to be placed. So your odds are now less than 1 in 14 officers now. How do you know when your time has come to be a statistic? If today is your day for you to beassaulted.... do you want the guy to be armed?

So... as unfortunate as it is....a police officer may not feel all that comfortable around you while you are armed with ANYTHING.

Do you need to disarm everyone during a stop? Probably not. It is really a judgement call and depends on the officer's comfort level.

I do not take guns from people on traffic stops. They could have shot me on the approach if they wanted to do it.

Click to expand...

It IS NOT dependent upon officer feelings, it is dependent upon the RAS. To disarm a citizen without a RAS that a crime has, is or is about to happen and that the suspect is both armed AND dangerous is a flagrant violation of the suspect's rights.

Remember the Supreme Court only said that it not a 4A violation if above were met, and did not give police the power or authority to detain persons or sieze property.

I understand your fear of the unknown citizen and your self preservation instinct LEO 229, but I really don't care if a police officer is uncomfortable with my open carry any more than if the S.S., BATFE or Soccer Moms are uncomfortable or don't like it. For Police Officers it is part of the landscape. Deal with it in a legal manner or find a different career.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

peter nap wrote:

Those numbers are skewed beyond any rational belief 229.
The simple fact is that 80% of those assaults are assaults in name only. Suspect brushes the officers hand away, or pushes him or pokes his finger at his nose, etc.

It's like the arrest numbers given at checkpoints. They include every ticket given for any Micky mouse offense (Dead inspection or tags, light out..etc) These are listed as arrests.

Click to expand...

Hey Peter,

If you can find me some data to back that.. I will go with it. But as I said... many of those mickey mouse assaults do not get reported.

I can bet that a great many more of those assaults are real attacks. Head butts, fights, weapons, fists... I have seen it happen.

I cannot break them down but the point is that people assault the police no matter how insignificant so the officer needs to keep his guard up.

Posting the numbers was not to prove anything but the officer needs to be aware and not become complacent or he can and will be attacked at some time. His being aware will minimize the damage done.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Assaults do happen. My point was just to cut some of the frosting off of that awe inspiring number.

I had to go back and re-read the origional post. It's gone a long way.

Legal or not, I still agree with what I posted in the beginning:

If true, my first reaction is "Good for him".

My second is "pretty stupid thing to make an issue of".

Take your pick.:uhoh:

If it's that important to you, make an issue. If not, don't!

Also, how often does it happen. In all the years I have carried, I have given an officer my gun once. In that case, I was pointing it at someone and the cops had no idea what was going on. I had it back within 3 minutes and he didn't drop it.

imported post

matt605 wrote:

You are correct, I have never worked as a LEO. I accept that people on drugs (including alcohol and caffiene) can become violent quite easily. My impression, which comes from television, is that people who would resist would more likely flee, even into the path of a large truck, as shown on the YouTube clip above.

In yourexperience as an LEO, how many times has a situation become life-threatening after an automobile passenger said that he had a legally concealed handgun and produced the permit for it? Isn't telling a cop that you have a gun when otherwise not required to do so something a person might do to prevent the cop from becoming surprised and frigtened when/if he discovers the gun himself? Isn't it a courtesy extended to make everything go a little easier and potentially safer?

Still, in Mimms, the supreme court ruled only on the driver's .38, and didn't comment on the passenger's .32. Was the passenger illegally searched? Was the passenger carrying a permit? Did the passenger's verbal identification of the weapon to police cause it to become an open carry revolver? "I have a .32 pistol in my jacket pocket, but didn't want to create a problem by pulling it out suddenly as you approached the car." The online material doesn't talk about the .32, and the case was decided in 1968 -- says a cop can make a driver step out of a car for officer safety.

:dude:

Click to expand...

I will respond to each paragraph

#1- I am taking it as a joke you referenced "caffeine" along with alcohol and drugs, so I guess there is nothing to reply with this one.

#2- I have never had a negative encounter with a legally armed person. I know officers who have, however I have not.

#3- Don't know.

imported post

Thundar wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

These are more serious assaults that warrant charges to be placed. So your odds are now less than 1 in 14 officers now. How do you know when your time has come to be a statistic? If today is your day for you to beassaulted.... do you want the guy to be armed?

So... as unfortunate as it is....a police officer may not feel all that comfortable around you while you are armed with ANYTHING.

Do you need to disarm everyone during a stop? Probably not. It is really a judgement call and depends on the officer's comfort level.

I do not take guns from people on traffic stops. They could have shot me on the approach if they wanted to do it.

Click to expand...

It IS NOT dependent upon officer feelings, it is dependent upon the RAS. To disarm a citizen without a RAS that a crime has, is or is about to happen and that the suspect is both armed AND dangerous is a flagrant violation of the suspect's rights.

Remember the Supreme Court only said that it not a 4A violation if above were met, and did not give police the power or authority to detain persons or sieze property.

I understand your fear of the unknown citizen and your self preservation instinct LEO 229, but I really don't care if a police officer is uncomfortable with my open carry any more than if the S.S., BATFE or Soccer Moms are uncomfortable or don't like it. For Police Officers it is part of the landscape. Deal with it in a legal manner or find a different career.

Click to expand...

I continued with discussion on traffic stop butthat the connection was not made.

I guess I was not very clear.... I was speaking about during a lawful stop when the officer has the authority to control your movements and has PC to issue you a ticket for a violation..... he may not feel comfortable with you being armed.

It was not in regards to someone OCing alone. Sorry for the confusion.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I guess I was not very clear.... I was speaking about during a lawful stop when the officer has the authority to control your movements and has PC to issue you a ticket for a violation..... he may not feel comfortable with you being armed.

It was not in regards to someone OCing alone. Sorry for the confusion.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear...are you saying that PC to issue a traffic citation is all that is needed to disarm a legally armed citizen?

imported post

What ever is needed to put another notch in his belt

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

What ever is needed to put another notch in his belt

Click to expand...

Doug... Honestly.... Please read your PM!!!

You keep at your personal attacks on me here and I think every one gets it. You do not care for me.

I have tried and tried to work things out with you but you refuse. I am not here to fight with you on any issues. I welcome an open and honest dialog on a variety of topics with you but you cannot seem to grasp that concept.

How about reading the PM or even talk to John about it and he can confirm it. I would really like to limit this petty childish stuff here and keep the board open to useful information.

You.... want to use it is a place to bash and belittle.

It really is shameful on your part.

Let's move on and get past our differences so the board does not have to get involved.

imported post

Comp-tech wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

I guess I was not very clear.... I was speaking about during a lawful stop when the officer has the authority to control your movements and has PC to issue you a ticket for a violation..... he may not feel comfortable with you being armed.

It was not in regards to someone OCing alone. Sorry for the confusion.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear...are you saying that PC to issue a traffic citation is all that is needed to disarm a legally armed citizen?

Click to expand...

Even in any Terry stop... all you need to to have is an articulable "reason" to believe someone is armed and dangerous to "frisk" them for weapons.

Keeping in mind that if you are legallydetained and you have a weapon visible.... it makes it that much easier to articulate that you "could" in fact be dangerous.

Anyone with a gun.... can be dangerous!!

There are no clear cut guidelines on what someone looks like or what they must say that makes them "dangerous" so it is all up to the officer to decide.

If you are rude, belligerent, overly nervous,have a threatening appearance, or do somethingout of the norm...the officerwill probably be relinquishing you of your gun for the next 10-15 minutes.

I suspect that some people get hung up on the fact that the officer must be able to articulate a reason to believe the person is "dangerous" and not just armed.

Everyone can bedangerous!!

So the hardpartis to believe they are actually armed with a weapon to use against you.

The courts have already ruled that if you look like a gang member.. you can be checked... Period! There is no need to articulate that THIS gang member in front of you today MAY be dangerous.

If you have a CC permit on file, you have a weapon openly displayed, or you have any gun paraphernalia in the car such as ammo or a holster.... This could be enough to believe you are armed.

But it all will come down to the officer during the legal detention. If he knows you are armed and feels that you may be a danger to him... he is going to disarm you.

Sorry guys.. I do not make up the minds of officers. I can only interpret to you what may happen and why.

Do not shoot the messenger.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Comp-tech wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

I guess I was not very clear.... I was speaking about during a lawful stop when the officer has the authority to control your movements and has PC to issue you a ticket for a violation..... he may not feel comfortable with you being armed.

It was not in regards to someone OCing alone. Sorry for the confusion.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear...are you saying that PC to issue a traffic citation is all that is needed to disarm a legally armed citizen?

Click to expand...

Even in any Terry stop... all you need to to have is an articulable "reason" to believe someone is armed and dangerous to "frisk" them for weapons.

Keeping in mind that if you are legallydetained and you have a weapon visible.... it makes it that much easier to articulate that you "could" in fact be dangerous.

Anyone with a gun.... can be dangerous!!

There are no clear cut guidelines on what someone looks like or what they must say that makes them "dangerous" so it is all up to the officer to decide.

If you are rude, belligerent, overly nervous,have a threatening appearance, or do somethingout of the norm...the officerwill probably be relinquishing you of your gun for the next 10-15 minutes.

I suspect that some people get hung up on the fact that the officer must be able to articulate a reason to believe the person is "dangerous" and not just armed.

Everyone can bedangerous!!

So the hardpartis to believe they are actually armed with a weapon to use against you.

The courts have already ruled that if you look like a gang member.. you can be checked... Period! There is no need to articulate that THIS gang member in front of you today MAY be dangerous.

If you have a CC permit on file, you have a weapon openly displayed, or you have any gun paraphernalia in the car such as ammo or a holster.... This could be enough to believe you are armed.

But it all will come down to the officer during the legal detention. If he knows you are armed and feels that you may be a danger to him... he is going to disarm you.

Sorry guys.. I do not make up the minds of officers. I can only interpret to you what may happen and why.

Do not shoot the messenger.

Click to expand...

With ALL DUE RESPCT....you seem to be stepping all over yourself with all this....I asked a fairly simple yes or no question with the opportunity for you to explain your answer.

In Casad, the courts ruled that someone merely carrying a gun is NOT RAS for a Terry search. "Could be dangerous" alone IS NOT sufficient RAS for a Terry search...there must be RAS of a crime past/present'future as well....according to Ohio v. Terry anyway.

imported post

>Opps!...Double Tap<

imported post

Comp-tech wrote:

With ALL DUE RESPCT....you seem to be stepping all over yourself with all this....I asked a fairly simple yes or no question with the opportunity for you to explain your answer.

In Casad, the courts ruled that someone merely carrying a gun is NOT RAS for a Terry search. "Could be dangerous" alone IS NOT sufficient RAS for a Terry search...there must be RAS of a crime past/present'future as well....according to Ohio v. Terry anyway.

Click to expand...

Well sir... when someone says "With all due respect"..it is s traditionally said in a condescending manner. In conjunction with the text you have added I am going to have to view your post as being said with a very negative tone.

You never requested "yes or no" so I took the opportunity to expound on the topic for further clarification. It was apparent that this needed to be done because you did not get it the first time.

So to give you the short answer... YES! If you are legally stopped... you could be disarmed.

Let me word that another way....

You need to be legally stopped before you can be disarmed.

Wait... I will add one more...

If you are legally stopped and suspected of being armed and dangerous.. you can be physically checkedand thendisarmed.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Comp-tech wrote:

With ALL DUE RESPCT....you seem to be stepping all over yourself with all this....I asked a fairly simple yes or no question with the opportunity for you to explain your answer.

In Casad, the courts ruled that someone merely carrying a gun is NOT RAS for a Terry search. "Could be dangerous" alone IS NOT sufficient RAS for a Terry search...there must be RAS of a crime past/present'future as well....according to Ohio v. Terry anyway.

Click to expand...

Well sir... when someone says "With all due respect"..it is s traditionally said in a condescending manner. In conjunction with the text you have added I am going to have to view your post as being said with a very negative tone.

My apologies if it "sounded" that way....I meant it to try to let you know that I wasn't intending to be disrespectful.
These things can easily be misunderstood without facial expression/body language etc.

You never requested "yes or no" so I took the opportunity to expound on the topic for further clarification. It was apparent that this needed to be done because you did not get it the first time.

I purposely worded my question so that it could be answered "yes or no" and thought you would answer in that context with an explaination of why you answered as you did.

So to give you the short answer... YES! If you are legally stopped... you could be disarmed.

Let me word that another way....

You need to be legally stopped before you can be disarmed.

Wait... I will add one more...

If you are legally stopped and suspected of being armed and dangerous.. you can be physically checkedand thendisarmed.

Then, under your "legally stopped" scenario, a person can be Terry searched.
For example, an officer stops a driver for a tail light out...this is sufficient RAS for a Terry search that may lead to being disarmed?
Not trying to be an ahole here...just trying my best to understand. I mean, an officer can "legally stop" me to ask the time....what defines your term "legally stopped"?

Click to expand...

imported post

Comp-tech wrote:

Then, under your "legally stopped" scenario, a person can be Terry searched.
For example, an officer stops a driver for a tail light out...this is sufficient RAS for a Terry search that may lead to being disarmed?
Not trying to be an ahole here...just trying my best to understand. I mean, an officer can "legally stop" me to ask the time....what defines your term "legally stopped"?

Click to expand...

OK... thanks for the clarification. It is hard to tell what tone is being used. This is why I only expressed my opinion on it.

Actually... you are not legally stopped if he is asking you for the time. That is avoluntary encounter. You are not legally required to tell him the time and he never said anything to make you believe you were not free to leave.

It is really all in the approach and how things start with contact.



[line]

"Good morning Sir! I am Deputy Fife with the Mayberry police department. I was hoping I could ask you what time it is"

You are absolutely NOT legally stopped here.



[line]

{Officer is looking for a bank robber who partially matches your description.....}

"Sir, I need to talk to you for a minute!"

"Ma'am... I need you to step over here!"

"Sir, stop right there! Let me see your hands!"

"I am Deputy Fife with the Mayberry police. Can you tell me where you are coming from?"

Now you have legally detained. Due to your matching the bank robber's descriptionthere is RS to stop you. Most of the time people are quickly excluded.


[line]


As far as hauling people out of the car and searching them for a broken tail light.... The officer would need to have a reason to believe you are armed and a danger.

If you look like the CEO for a fortune 500 company and you are polite.... I see no reason to have you step out.

But if you look like a outlaw biker and you are talking $hit... you will probably get frisked!!

It is actually very rare for any motorist to get frisked during a stop. You have to really do something to set off the alarm bells.

So just because it can be done does not mean it is routine.

To sum it up.... what is the definition of someone legally stopped?

Someone who has reason to believe they are not free to leave.

Be it...

• You have my ID
• You gave me an order to do something (Come here, stand there, sit down, hands up, don't move, get back here)
• You pulled me over
• You told me I am not free to go yet

I hope this helps.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

To sum it up.... what is the definition of someone legally stopped?

Someone who has reason to believe they are not free to leave.

Click to expand...

Cite, please.

From the forum rules:

7) if you state a rule of law, it is incumbant upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when avaiable,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.