imported post
As a police officer, reading these posts has given me insight on the way this situation can be interpreted. If you look at the situation from an LEO's view you can draw a different conclusion. Three policeman entered the house with consent. As far as I know, the occupants of the dwelling do not know the officers, and vice versa. They are investigating a crime. The police officers do not know if the occupants are good citizens, they do not know if they are criminals. Are the occupant(s) felons? Did the occupant(s) commit the crime?Are the occupant(s) wanted for any crimes? Are there illegal substances in the house?At this point, from the officer's standpoint, those questions are unknown. A male subject with a holstered pistol, who may or may not have committed the crime, may or may not have a warrant, may or may not have illegal substances/items in the house, the officers have no idea.Is the armed citizen going to suddenly draw his firearmbecause he is in facton probation, and does not want to go back to jail? I don't know, and neither do the police in the house. Not knowing the answers to any of these questions, should the police have either ignored the fact that the subject has a firearm, or tell the male subject to "please leave that weapon holstered until I run your name, and find out that you have 2 outstanding felony warrants." The bottom line is that as a police officer, I'm going home to my family at the end of my shift, and if the officers got into your feelings by making sure they were safe securing a firearm from an unknown male, then maybe move to Europe. I fully advocate OC by everyone who is able, because I believe someone with a visible weapon is far less likely to be a victim of a crime, however, an LEO doesn't know Joe Citizen from Joe Criminal, and going home to my family is my priority.When your child says "Daddy, is the bad guy going to shoot you at work" maybe then you'll understandwhy the officers secured the armed subject. However, if you feel like your fourth amendment rights were violated, then by all means consult an attorney. My post isn't about the actions of the police before or after the securing of the firearm, and I'm not saying they were right or wrong, i wasn't there. If you reply to my post, please keep it relevant to the securing of the firearm, not to the fact that you feel that the subject's civil rights were violated because a firearm was secured from an unknown male during the investigation of a crime, after they were granted consent to enter the premesis. Bottom lineis, deny enty to the police.
