• 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.

OC encounter at Best Buy in Metaire, LA

DannyAbear

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
65
Location
, ,
imported post

I think what smokin was refering to is there is a lot of difference between carrying and shooting within a couple hundred feet of populated areas
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

I wonder what the off duty officer (who was working for a private corporation that day) would say if a person without a permit came in and response to his quesion tell him theydid not have a permit so cannot comply with his demad to break thelaw and conceal?

You might want to run that scenario buy his opolice chief asap so that det. can retrain it's officers.
 

DannyAbear

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
65
Location
, ,
imported post

Mike wrote:
I wonder what the off duty officer (who was working for a private corporation that day) would say if a person without a permit came in and response to his quesion tell him theydid not have a permit so cannot comply with his demad to break thelaw and conceal?

You might want to run that scenario buy his opolice chief asap so that det. can retrain it's officers.
Hey Mike, that sounds like the best idea yet
 

sraacke

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
1,214
Location
Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
I wonder what the off duty officer (who was working for a private corporation that day) would say if a person without a permit came in and response to his quesion tell him theydid not have a permit so cannot comply with his demad to break thelaw and conceal?

You might want to run that scenario buy his opolice chief asap so that det. can retrain it's officers.
This is why, even though I have a state issued CHP, I rarely carry it when I open carry and if asked I state that I don't have a permit (with me/on my person). IF asked if I have a CHP I answer "No" and since I'm not conceal carrying then it's no more of an issue than if I have a fishing license or not.
 

charlie12

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
545
Location
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

yale wrote:
Mike wrote:
I wonder what the off duty officer (who was working for a private corporation that day) would say if a person without a permit came in and response to his quesion tell him theydid not have a permit so cannot comply with his demad to break thelaw and conceal?

You might want to run that scenario buy his opolice chief asap so that det. can retrain it's officers.
This is why, even though I have a state issued CHP, I rarely carry it when I open carry and if asked I state that I don't have a permit (with me/on my person). IF asked if I have a CHP I answer "No" and since I'm not conceal carrying then it's no more of an issue than if I have a fishing license or not.

But if they run your DL after you tell them you don't have a CHP they know you are lying and it probably won't go good if everything else isn't right. Fishing license don't come back on a DL.

I see no reason to lie.
 

charlie12

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
545
Location
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

DR JACK wrote:
I have just received an email from their public affairs department that they are looking into the matter and '' are reviewing your communication to ascertain if there is anything that we need to address with our officers''.
Great, let us know what happens
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

DR JACK wrote:
I have just received an email from their public affairs department that they are looking into the matter and '' are reviewing your communication to ascertain if there is anything that we need to address with our officers''.
Too funny. Anyone with half a brain (most here qualify under those standards)
already know there IS something they need to address.

This is their way of blowing you off, step 1.

Attack of the small minds commences in 3, 2 1........................
 

DR JACK

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
18
Location
LIVE IN S.E. AR BUT WORK / TRAVEL IN LA, Arkansas,
imported post


here is the entire collection of emails so far....with sensitive information deleted of course....also to get the flow of the emails you must read from bottom to top....



Mr. LaChute,
I thank you for your quick response. With all due respect, I believe it is very clear that there is something you need to address with your officers. This is a very serious matter of possible civil rights violations and could lead into civil and criminal penalties against your officers and their supervisors. There has been quite allot of recent media attention to matters like this and several federal and supreme court decisions based on these same situations. If I remember correctly, your parish and the City of New Orleans were recently issued injunctions against violating 2nd amendment rights of law abiding citizens in possession of LEGAL firearms. I hope my concerns are being taken very seriously and this matter looked into deeply and seriously. I gave your officers and your department the benefit of the doubt and gave you the chance to appropriately handle this matter internally instead of taking it to the media, the public, and the courts. As of this time I am still willing and hoping that you will handle this internally for the benefit of your officers and their public image. I will be anxiously awaiting your final conclusion of this matter before making my decision to speak with higher authorities.


Thanks, Jack

Jack MPIC, NREMT-P, TM, CSC, RS


-----Original Message----
Subject: RE: incident with officer



Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns regarding this incident.

We are reviewing your communication to ascertain if there is anything that we need to address with our officers.

Sincerely,


Steven E. LaChute
Civic and Business Liaison
Jefferson Parish Sheriffs Office


The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers.If you do not wish to receive these notifications please reply with "Stop" in the subject line.






[align=center][size=

]
[/align]
From:
To: Sheriff
Subject: incident with officer

[size=]


Dear Sir,

I had an incident with one of your officers on the evening of Dec 16th that has caused me great concern. Due to the special nature of this incident and the great legal ramifications involved I wished to bring it to your attention for the protection of your department, your parish, your citizens, and for myself.




I am very familiar that LA is an open carry state. I have also carried openly in many places and stores throughout LA with no problems at all even while having friendly conversations with officers. So now you know a little about me I will get to my point. The night of Dec 16th 2009 I was traveling through Metaire and stopped at the best buy store. I had my Ruger 9mm in a kydex belt holster at the 430 position open carried with no jacket. (I have been in this store several times before with no incidents or questions). anyway, I walked in past the duty officer nodding and saying hello and went about my business. After about 30 minutes he walked by me while pushing a cart and picking up a few things himself. As he got close to me he smiled and asked what department I was with. At first I thought he was referring to which department of my company I worked for since it is a very large, well known and respected, company with several departments and since I was currently wearing a nice button up shirt with my companies logo on it. When I told him this he said ''oh so your not a law enforcement officer?'' I said no sir I am not. He then asked if I had a permit? To which I said yes sir I do. He then asked if it was for concealed weapon and I told him that yes It was. He then proceeded to tell me that ''concealed means completely concealed'' and told me that I needed to return my gun to my vehicle please because it was illegal for me to carry my weapon unless completely concealed. At that time I told him It was my understanding from researching LA handgun laws and speaking with the LA Attorney General that LA was a completely legal open carry state. He then told me that ''LA WAS ABSOLUTELY NOT AN OPEN CARRY STATE AND WAS HIGHLY ILLEGAL''. As I was on a short time frame and didn't have any legal documents on me I just told him that I would make sure and double checkthe lawsand advised him to do the same. As I was ready to check out I asked if It was ok for me to go ahead and check out and leave or if he was ordering me to leave and secure the weapon first and THEN come back in to check out. He told me it would be fine for me to go ahead and check out but just be sure to remember to keep my weapon concealed at all times or leave it in the vehicle from now on. He was very polite during all this as was I. However, it does dismay me that either he was completely and knowingly lying to me, or else he really truly had absolutely no idea of what the true law is regarding handguns and open carry. Of course after this incident I again started reviewing the open carry laws of LA. In my research I discovered that LA IS A TRULY LEGAL OPEN CARRY STATE. I also discovered that there has been several recent incidents throughout the state where an officer has made an arrest and seizure of weapon for someone that was openly carrying a firearm, and then that officer, his department, and his city or parish was sued for civil rights violations, and for criminal false arrest and kidnapping charges. The LA attorney general has released several very plain and clear opinions about these cases as well have many supreme court and federal judges. I will attach several of these to this email for your viewing.




So my question and concerns for you sir are this: Could this just be a case of one of your officers not being trained in regards to these situations and having the wrong information? If so is there some way to advise your officers of this law so legal citizens are not falsely arrested for these incidents? And so your officers and your department and municipality is not placed at risk of civil and criminal legal actions?



Or is this a regular policy in your department? I could fully understand an officer approaching someone with a visible weapon to make sure they are legal and not a danger to anyone. However, The thought of a law officer telling citizens lies that they are breaking the law when in fact they are not, or even worse an officer knowingly and illegally arresting an upstanding citizen that is completely and legally exercising his free rights is just incomprehensible.



In closing Sir, I would like to make a request. I would most greatly and sincerely appreciate if you could send me an attached letter from you and your office, stating the legalities of me being able to openly carry my firearm in your parish, just so I could show it upon request to any of your officers that may approach me again in the future. Also, I would greatly appreciate if you would personally advise all your officers of the legalness of responsible open carry in this state.

I will be anxiously awaiting your response.



Regards, and Sincere Thanks, Jack MPIC, NREMTP, TM, CSC, RS

.AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default}
 

sandman

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
114
Location
St.Amant, Louisiana, USA
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
DR JACK wrote:
I have just received an email from their public affairs department that they are looking into the matter and '' are reviewing your communication to ascertain if there is anything that we need to address with our officers''.
Too funny. Anyone with half a brain (most here qualify under those standards)
already know there IS something they need to address.

This is their way of blowing you off, step 1.

Attack of the small minds commences in 3, 2 1........................
please tell who you are talking about here
 

4sooth

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
126
Location
, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Dr. Jack--you will be pleased to know that Louisiana does not offer qualified immunity to its police! Only partial immunity--something most police do not know. However getting local courts to enforce this is difficult to impossible just as Mark says. Your best chance is the Federal court system.

See also Harlow v Fitzgerald 457 US 800--again in your favor. Per this case ALL public officials are required to personally be aware of the law governing their actions.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

A belated welcome to the forum, Dr. Jack.

I can only comment that Jefferson Parish is where reserve deputy Steven Seagal illegally confiscated a handgun from a 20 year old, claiming it was illegal for anyone under 21 to possess a handgun. And this was on national television, recorded for posterity! Think any discipline or retraining is forthcoming? Nawwww.

Second, while some folks here responded a little harshly when you didn't seem to think your rights were violated (you weren't arrested or detained), you have to understand why they think that way: you were disarmed under color of law by a LEO who should know better.

Think about it: if it had been anyone except a LEO demanding that you disarm, would you? The only reason you did so was because of the perceived authority he had to make your life miserable. He was smiling and polite, but he could be smiling and polite while he cuffed you, took you to jail, processed you, and even when he let you go several hours later after determining no laws were broken.

I hope you get a satisfactory response from JPSO, but it doesn't mean much will actually change in the end.
 

DR JACK

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
18
Location
LIVE IN S.E. AR BUT WORK / TRAVEL IN LA, Arkansas,
imported post

Thank you for the welcome KB. as for being ''disarmed'' i was not. I was never ''disarmed'' at any time. While he did tell me it was illegal for me to ''open carry'' he still allowed me to finish getting stuff together and check out. He didn't even stand there watching me. he went his way and I went mine ''still armed'' and finished my business. Yes he ''could'' have asked me to disarm and then finish my business or at least to untuck my shirt and conceal but he ''did not''. If he had done any of that Yes I would be much more upset. My main concern of this matter is that as a LEO (and being an older one so he should have experience and should know better) was that he either didn't know the law in question or else he did know the law and just ''flat out LIED'' to me. That is what I am concerned about and trying to rectify. Is whether he is a LIAR or ignorant of the laws.
 

Courrèges

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
43
Location
, ,
imported post

DR JACK wrote:
My main concern of this matter is that as a LEO (and being an older one so he should have experience and should know better) was that he either didn't know the law in question or else he did know the law and just ''flat out LIED'' to me. That is what I am concerned about and trying to rectify. Is whether he is a LIAR or ignorant of the laws.

I think even that's a bit charitable. If he told you flat out that open carry is "highly illegal," and he had no real knowledge of Louisiana carry law, he was lying to you. The police are not empowered to simply guess or assume what the law is, particularly when the law is clearly established.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
imported post

Courrèges wrote:
DR JACK wrote:
My main concern of this matter is that as a LEO (and being an older one so he should have experience and should know better) was that he either didn't know the law in question or else he did know the law and just ''flat out LIED'' to me. That is what I am concerned about and trying to rectify. Is whether he is a LIAR or ignorant of the laws.

I think even that's a bit charitable. If he told you flat out that open carry is "highly illegal," and he had no real knowledge of Louisiana carry law, he was lying to you. The police are not empowered to simply guess or assume what the law is, particularly when the law is clearly established.

However, police are allowed to lie during the course of an investigation and in that regard has committed no transgression. LEO's know how intimidating their words can be and are trained to maximize this. Unfortunately, in this instance, it seemsthe LEO has abused his "lying" privileges..
 

Courrèges

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
43
Location
, ,
imported post

georg,

True, but there wasn't an investigation here, any the lie served no investigative purpose. I'd call it low-grade police misconduct.
 
Top