imported post
This is a email exchange I have had with Paul Laska concerning his article that I referenced in a previous post. I had sent my comments to the editor of Lawofficer.com which was in turn forwarded to Paul Laska. Needless to say I don't agree with his response concerning "rude". It is in a urban setting that a person is most likely to have to use his personaal protection firearm. To worry that it might upset some oversensitive person and be counter productive to the open carry movement is in my opinion senseless. Anyway read the emails and draw your own conclusions.
Dear Dale,
Thanks for the comments.
My comment about "rude" was not directed at exercise of a right. It was directed at the point that certain activities are not always appropriate, despite being legal. I believe that prudence calls for one to show discretion is carry, as in many other things in life. Open carry in many areas acts alarm many "innocents" who fear firearms, think we who dare to own (not to mention carry) are wrong, and will not be won over by carry in an inappropriate setting. Rural areas, and also urban carry such as delivery personnel, folks out late at night to make a necessary trip, etc. may well be appropriate. Going to the mall with those soccer moms, etc. may well not be. No, it is not wrong in a legal manner in an open carry state, but may be a serious faux pas from the aspect of winning over folks who are already intimidated. I also believe that it is a serious tactical shortcoming - that exposed firearm marks one to the creature looking to rob the convenience store as the first victim of his assault. Many agencies mandate that officers not in uniform remain concealed, for both the PR importance to the agency but also for the tactical consideration. Kind of like the baggy, droopy hip-hop style of wearing pants - I don't believe it should be legislated against, it is their freedom of expression (not to mention makes it for those inclined to criminality more likely to trip and fall), but in many settings it is inappropriate and rude. Likewise the now common wearing of hats indoors - there are times it becomes unavoidable, but sitting in arestaurantor similar locales is rude. Neither wins others to their side in understanding, and mostly just acts toalienatethose who find it inappropriate.
You are right about the mindset of cops. It is a difficult thing. They are often ostracized by many in common society, or subjected to meaningless drivel by folks. They are not given the support to learn to deal with this, and your comments are very accurate, I think. There should be more outreach at the entry level especially to help the incoming cops understand this and try to protect them from the "us 'n them" mentality. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, academies are very unlikely to add such a segment.
You are right about the stats on police deaths, I think that for almost my entire career, except for the early 70s, traffic deaths deaths outnumbered criminally by about 2 to 1. Part is due, I believe, to the greater emphasis on officer survival skills to driving skills. Part is due to a need to generate better methods of emergency parking, to provide better protection for officers stopped roadside, whether from DUI, inattentive drivers, or other hazards. Finally, the need to improve driving skills and determine better tactics for use during high speed, whether responses or pursuits. If we can find folks with the knowledge to do the research and establish better techniques, perhaps thetrafficrelatedtoll can be lowered as well. It is a sad fact that officers are generally much less safety conscious than members of other fields such as the fire service, EMS, etc. I don;t believe in over regulation as the answer, but do see the need for safety training and enlightenment of the police service.
Thanks for your comments,
Paul
Paul R. Laska
[font="Arial Black, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif"]
[font="Arial Black, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif"]Forensic and Anti-terrorism Consultant[/font][/font]
[url]www.PaulRLaskaForensicConsulting.com[/url]
[font="Arial Black, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif"]
www.PaulRLaska.com[/font]
[font="Arial Black, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif"]
PO Box 1423[/font]
[font="Arial Black, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif"]
Palm City, FL 34991
561-722-4435 cell
772-781-9014landline[/font]
[font="Arial Black, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif"][/font]
[font="Arial Black, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif"]In the name of freedom, there has to be a correlation between rights and duties, by which every person is called to assume responsibility for his or her choices.[/font]
[align=right]
[font="Arial Black, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif"]-- Pope Benedict XVI, addressing the UN General Assembly[/font][/align]
[align=left]
From:[/b]Dale[mailto:d]
Sent:[/b]Thursday, April 16, 2009 9:55 AM
To:[/b]Dees, Tim (ELS-SDG)
Subject:[/b]Open Carry
[/align]
I just finished reading Paul Laska's article concerning open carry of firearms by the general public. For the most part I find it was a good article.There are two areas that concern me. First his suggestion that open carry is OK in a rural setting but rude in an urban setting. Constitutional rights are not setting dependant Second; Unless criminal conduct is suspected a person detained is only required to give correct name and address. Any other identification requested by the officer in charge is not warranted.
I havegeneral comment I would like to make.
I have law ennforcement officers in my family. One of them recently told me that the one thing that troubled him was being able to maintain a rational mind set. What he meant by that is that after dealing 24/7 with the lower element of society one eventually gets the mindset that all of society is bad. The reality is that 90% of society is good and means him no harm. He said it is a struggle for him to keep that perspective. I am sure he is not alone in his conundrum.
I recently attended graduation ceremony of a friend that completed a police acadamy. Some days before the ceremony I was given the privlege of getting a one on one tour of the academy and it's curiculum. I was suprised that there wasn't a great deal of class time given to the psychology of the job. Training that could address the need to maintain a rational mindset.
Another family member in law enforcement told me that he was troubled by the apparent "phobia" law enforcement has in general when it comes to the possession of firearms by the general public. He says that he is much more worried about being killed by a careless or drunk driver of an automobile than being shot while on duty. FBI statistics would bear that comment out. Year after year more police officers are killed by some form of automobile action than are killed by firearms, yet an officer killed by firearm will gain nationwide attention whereas one killed by a drunk driver will generally be lucky to make the local news.
Thank you for your attention
