Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: I keep hearing the same line...

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    It is usually from law enforcement officers who really don't appreciate civilians rights to bear arms. It usually goes something like this, "If people are allowed to or choose to carry firearms openly, it is much more dangerous and harder for us to do our jobs." I read this type of comment constantly and hear it regularly. I haven't had an opportunity to discuss it with someone who feels this way as of yet.

    Is there anyone on this forum who can explain this logic to me? From my perspective, if an officer responds to an incident and sees openly holstered firearms isn't the opposite true? Say for example, an officer comes into a situation where a crime has been reported (lets say a Kmart for example) and he finds 20 people in the location. Say he finds 3 people with openly holstered firearms. Isn't that better for him than the same three people hiding/legally concealingtheir firearms? At a glance he has more information then when he is still in the dark as to who may be armed. The situation isn't any different. There are still three people with firearms.

    I would assume they are taught to assess the situation from the moment the call comes through arrival/approach. Isn't more visible information better? How can approaching a group of people and not knowing who is armed be better for them? I can't see a single reason, other than they wish all people were unarmed. I am sure they cannot assume a person to be unarmed because they cannot see a firearm so shouldn't the way they approach all parties be the same (as if they are armed?)

    I really am not concerned with the training policies. I just would like some insight as to why not knowing who is armed (ie. mandated concealed carry)aids police.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    Not to hijack my own post but who decided Rep. Lawlor is the only person to interveiw for the anti gun side of the discussion. With comments like this he is obviously biased and prejudiced.

    "What about people who push this right and they go into a McDonald's wearing a camouflage outfit and a gun?" Lawlor said. "There are people who do this. The criminal law says it is a crime to either intentionally or recklessly create alarm in public. For the same reason it is against the law to stand up in a movie theater and cry 'Fire,' you should be arrested."

    Before you know it camouflage clothing will be outlawed.You areobviously intending to cause panic if you wear any as he points out. Next will be tattoos and earings.Are you kidding me? Talk about sterotyping and profiling. This is pretty rediculous coming from an elected rep. In his eyes, carrying a gun is the same as yelling fire in a theater. Wearing camo is like yelling fire in a theater, because if you do you are probably wearing a gun for which we should lock you up! I can't stand the stupidity. This is theEXACT same mentality that got your assault weapons bans put on the books. They "look"scary. Lets make them illegal. Rifles painted black? Pants painted camouflaged? It is open and obvious bias and prejudice that is allowed to be expressed.


  3. #3
    Regular Member OPS MARINE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    392

    Post imported post

    There are a few reasons why knowing who is armed can help the police. We have to remember that they are human, and while some may not admit it, they are subject to the same fears. Who would want to enter a situation where they didn't know who could harm them? Another reason is because if the Officer is there by him/herself, and YOU are the only other person there with a weapon (and he/she knows this) perhaps they can call on you for assistance until further reinforcements arrive. It can be a win/win.

    Yet another reason is this...because they (the Police) are there, they outweigh any force options you have on your belt. The Pepper Spray, Taser, Baton, Orkut Police Nunchuck, whatever...you only have a deadly force option. They are better equipped to control the situation, and through their assessment, either exhaust less lethal means first or take a different course.

    Having been a Police Officer, these are the things I see and understand. I now have only a few options. I can run, hide, fight rather unfairly, restrain or shoot. Like a Police Officer, I can be sued, but unlike them, I do not have blanket coverage. I do not act under the color of authority for now.
    "Most people respect the badge. Everybody... respects the gun."

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    You made my argument for me. I was looking for the opposing viewpoint.I was looking for why some claim it is better to not allow open carry. Why some claim open carry is a detriment to the police. Why it makes their job more dangerous. Why they believe concealed carry makes the police safer and their job easier.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    Having grown up in a public safety family, done a brief stint as a police officer and asked hundreds of police officers questions about firearms and open carry since 2007, I am prepared to offer my personal opinions and observations.

    Police officers want to believe that every person carrying an exposed weapon is a fellow officer. This is why that frequently ask if your on the job.

    Police officers would prefer to approach and armed person who has their weapon exposed so they know what they are dealing with.

    Police officers believe that they must make an arrest to cover their mistakes and often choose a catch all charge like Breach of Peace or Disorderly Conduct thinking it is easy to explain and prove by verbal testimony.

    Senior members of Law Enforcement don't know how to put the arrest vehicle in reverse to mitigate any damage.

    It was time for someone like James Goldberg to step up to the plate. He has the family and friends in law enforcement that haveofferedthemoral, financial and legal support he has enjoyed since his arrest.

    James is very aware of the support he finds regarding this issue.





  6. #6
    Regular Member atrule's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Yalesville, , USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    I seem to remember signing a statement that I read certain of the Connecticut General Statutes as a condition of getting my pistol permit. (One of the few requirements I heartily support). Sec. 53a-22. Use of physical force in making arrest or preventing escape was one of them.

    The Police can ask you to help, under their direction, to protect or to help detain a suspect. Also, a citizen is legally justified to detain a person if he reasonably believes, and the facts support, that a suspect committed a felony. Be careful, because it is reasonable force, not deadly force, unless protecting a 3rd person.

    Part of the Great Liberal Tradition is that the Common Citizen is to have reasonable tools to protect himself, e.g. handguns. Also part of the Great Liberal Tradition is to rely on the Common Citizen to help with law enforcement, and not just leave it up to officials. Not only is this the Great Liberal Tradition, but the Common Citizen was historically the main law enforcement agents in Anglo-American Common Law.

    Perhaps the ideal is that Peace Officers, who have the power of arrest, should be un-armed, and rely on the Common Citizens around him to apprehend suspects. This would give a healthy balance of power between the Government and the Governed.

    The following is the relevant current law. (Interesting they added 'motor vehicle inspector' to the list of officials since I got my pistol permit.)


    Sec. 53a-22 http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap9...#Sec53a-22.htm
    (d) Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, a person who has been directed by a peace officer, special policeman appointed under section 29-18b, Department of Motor Vehicles inspector appointed under section 14-8 and certified pursuant to section 7-294d, or authorized official of the Department of Correction or the Board of Pardons and Paroles to assist such peace officer, special policeman, motor vehicle inspector or official to effect an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody is justified in using reasonable physical force when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to carry out such peace officer's, special policeman's, motor vehicle inspector's or official's direction.

    (e) A person who has been directed to assist a peace officer, special policeman appointed under section 29-18b, Department of Motor Vehicles inspector appointed under section 14-8 and certified pursuant to section 7-294d, or authorized official of the Department of Correction or the Board of Pardons and Paroles under circumstances specified in subsection (d) of this section may use deadly physical force to effect an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody only when: (1) He or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or (2) he or she is directed or authorized by such peace officer, special policeman, motor vehicle inspector or official to use deadly physical force, unless he or she knows that the peace officer, special policeman, motor vehicle inspector or official himself or herself is not authorized to use deadly physical force under the circumstances.

    (f) A private person acting on his or her own account is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person whom he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in fact has committed such offense; but he or she is not justified in using deadly physical force in such circumstances, except in defense of person as prescribed in section 53a-19.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    terryville, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    110

    Post imported post

    Edward Peruta wrote:
    Having grown up in a public safety family, done a brief stint as a police officer and asked hundreds of police officers questions about firearms and open carry since 2007, I am prepared to offer my personal opinions and observations.

    Police officers want to believe that every person carrying an exposed weapon is a fellow officer. This is why that frequently ask if your on the job.

    Police officers would prefer to approach and armed person who has their weapon exposed so they know what they are dealing with.

    Police officers believe that they must make an arrest to cover their mistakes and often choose a catch all charge like Breach of Peace or Disorderly Conduct thinking it is easy to explain and prove by verbal testimony.

    Senior members of Law Enforcement don't know how to put the arrest vehicle in reverse to mitigate any damage.

    It was time for someone like James Goldberg to step up to the plate. He has the family and friends in law enforcement that haveofferedthemoral, financial and legal support he has enjoyed since his arrest.

    James is very aware of the support he finds regarding this issue.



    ed you are correct on this. i had the pleasure of meeting james a few weeks back at hoffmans and we talked for a few minutes. i introduced myself and we got to talking about this and other forums and what kind of support he has. what a nice guy to talk to. i offered my gratitude multiple times for the bs he is going through to further the cause.

    to the op, imo i feel most cops just flat get an attitude about guns once they accecpt the badge and job. more of an irrogance surrounding themselves. not all cops are like this, and i know a couple with quite the opposite views, but i do think they are rare. to make my point more understandable, it is similar to the greed/power hunger we are seeing right now in politics. they get power and become "above" us "regular" citizens.

Posting Permissions

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