Potent Dagger
Regular Member
Let me reply to those who took issue with my previous post collectively.
First many of you seem to think that your "right" to carry trumps the issue of Officer Safety as found in cases like Terry v. Ohio, Michigan v. Long, and many others. I can only assume that your beliefs are born of ignorance of the real world application of concepts such as Reasonable Suspicion and the practical application of those legal concepts as it relates to officer tactical responses in those cases.
Anyone with prior law enforcement experience or training knows that next in line after domestic disturbance calls, traffic stops are the second major category of police activity where officer injuries and fatalities occur. Traffic stops, even for the most frivolous of traffic law infringements can rapidly escalate, and have dangerous results for officer safety. Were you speeding because you are late for an appointment, or are you seeking to put distance between your self and the scene of some other more serious offense you just committed,,,,,the officer approaching your car has no real idea.
When I was stopped by a Louisiana Deputy in a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, he had no idea if I was there to buy drugs, sell drugs, sell guns, hire a prostitute, do a drive by shooting, commit a cartel ordered hit on a drug dealer, or if I was just there to meet with a client of my business. That Deputy was acting to protect the public, which includes me, and by me taking the initiative to let him know I was armed legally, I took a step toward not only helping him do his job by moving on to someone else with decidedly less legal intentions, but I also proactively acted to ensure my own safety by letting the officer know I was armed and not to find that out by surprise, if he asked me to step out of my vehicle and saw my Walther stuck inside the waistband of my jeans which could cause him to have reason to react.
But lets say that the officer who stops you gives you the benefit of the doubt and assumes that you just have a lead foot. He approaches your vehicle, obtains your drivers license and engages you in conversation about your driving habits. He then notices the butt of your pistol as you lean over to get your registration out of the glove box.
His RAS is that you are armed with a dangerous weapon ( which can be a Felony crime), and that RAS triggers two things:
First off it triggers the ability of the officer to search you and to act in a much more aggressive manner using tactics from the perspective of officer safety. He can draw his weapon, he can physically restrain you into a position where he has dominance over your movements or gains him tactical advantage prior to conducting a search of your person , he may search your person, seize your firearm during the duration of his stop, and can place you in handcuffs for the purpose of officer safety. Yet you are not under arrest.
The Officer is not obligated to assume at the moment he surprisingly becomes aware you are armed that you are in compliance with the laws related to having a permit, and he is permitted to first insure his own safety by taking the weapon into his temporary custody. Officer Safety Doctrine demands he be proactive and act aggressively in his own safety interests before conducting further investigation by questioning you. He is not obligated to assume that because you are armed you are just a citizen exercising your right to be armed, and there are a long list of dead and seriously wounded officers to support this doctrine.
This is the classic Terry V. Ohio investigatory detention in a traffic violation situation.
The second thing this situation triggers is the doctrine of warrantless search of a vehicle under Michigan v. Long, which expanded the Terry doctrine to a warrantless search of vehicle compartments. Both cases allow for warrantless searches of vehicles under the circumstances I describe in the above paragraph. The RAS is the same, you are armed with a dangerous weapon, and the Officer is not obligated to assume that the weapon he takes from your person is the only weapon you have. The Officer may search the vehicle compartment for other weapons, and he may even search other occupants of the vehicle based on this type of RAS as he may assume others in the vehicle are armed or have access to weapons hidden from view inside the vehicle.
Being observed by a LEO that you are armed is in itself RAS under Terry and Michigan v. Long in any state where carrying without a license is an offense. The officer is allowed first and foremost to act to insure his own safety BEFORE attempting to make any further determinations as to if you are legally armed.
Since many of us do OC and CCW, not to place yourself in the shoes of the Officer and look at things from his perspective is not only foolish, but under many seemingly innocent circumstances, down right dangerous.
By being proactive during a traffic stop and informing the officer you are "legally armed" as opposed to "obviously armed perhaps in violation of the law" you accomplish several things:
1. First you put the officer more at ease with the situation, you are friendly and cooperative, and he will more than likely reciprocate .
2. You have proactively removed the RAS for the traffic stop to escalate into a more confrontational Terry Stop situation, by removing the possibility of passively provoking a legally justified, aggressive tactical response from the officer, who is under no obligated to assume your "good will" toward his safety.
3. You open the door to a much less confrontational educational opportunity to discuss CCW and OC with the individual officer in a manner that allows you to educate the individual officer, and perhaps gain an ally in our cause to make OC and CCW a non-starter issue with police officials who will have influence on legislation we have yet to encounter.
Police Officers in this nation encounter many armed individuals on an almost daily basis. Part of the sad truth about officers is that most of those they encounter with weapons are not citizens exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms, but instead are criminals who use those arms to threaten the safety of the public and endanger the lives of officers who try to protect us.
As citizens who have decided to take our own safety into consideration and arm ourselves, we can take two different avenues in our encounters with officers, one which will leave the officers with a positive impression of the greater OC and CCW community, or one which will leave them with the impression that some of us are simply "insert your favorite explicative" looking for a confrontation.
Officers who encounter us are going to voice their experiences up the chain of command, and if the dominate view they express is that OCers' and even some CCW'ers are actively seeking confrontations with police officers, the response from the command level will be to voice opposition when they are asked to comment on legislation which support expansion of the right of OC or CCW, or to support the passage of legislation restricting OC and CCW which we would oppose.
I resubmit that our cause is best served through creative and proactive positive encounters with police officers, not only at the street level, but also at the supervisory and command levels. We need to work with those who develop the training programs for officers and dispatchers on critical information they need in handling "man with a gun calls" and we need to work with police and the media to educate the general public that just because they observe someone with a weapon there is not necessarily a crime being committed. I assure you that a few isolated segments on APT or the Birmingham TV stations is not sufficient.
From a practical standpoint, with each confrontational encounter between LEO's and OC/CCW practitioners, there also comes a risk that a situation may occur with tragic consequences. An Officer may be killed by a person he concludes is simply OCing, or an OCer may be killed by an officer who misinterprets the OCers actions. Such an outcome will have far reaching consequences, adverse public reaction to OC/CCW, and possible adverse legislative action which will roll back the cause of not only OC but also CCW.
Currently with the exception of the Illinois, CCW and OC have the law and the Constitution on our side, what we clearly do not have is a totality of support and acceptance from the general public, the media, our legislators, or the Law Enforcement Community, for the concept of OC and CCW and confrontational encounters with law enforcement will not convince them to join us rather than to oppose us.
Being right, or it seems for some more like "self-righteous", is one thing, winning is a whole other game and some of you do not seem to grasp the rules for winning.
First many of you seem to think that your "right" to carry trumps the issue of Officer Safety as found in cases like Terry v. Ohio, Michigan v. Long, and many others. I can only assume that your beliefs are born of ignorance of the real world application of concepts such as Reasonable Suspicion and the practical application of those legal concepts as it relates to officer tactical responses in those cases.
Anyone with prior law enforcement experience or training knows that next in line after domestic disturbance calls, traffic stops are the second major category of police activity where officer injuries and fatalities occur. Traffic stops, even for the most frivolous of traffic law infringements can rapidly escalate, and have dangerous results for officer safety. Were you speeding because you are late for an appointment, or are you seeking to put distance between your self and the scene of some other more serious offense you just committed,,,,,the officer approaching your car has no real idea.
When I was stopped by a Louisiana Deputy in a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, he had no idea if I was there to buy drugs, sell drugs, sell guns, hire a prostitute, do a drive by shooting, commit a cartel ordered hit on a drug dealer, or if I was just there to meet with a client of my business. That Deputy was acting to protect the public, which includes me, and by me taking the initiative to let him know I was armed legally, I took a step toward not only helping him do his job by moving on to someone else with decidedly less legal intentions, but I also proactively acted to ensure my own safety by letting the officer know I was armed and not to find that out by surprise, if he asked me to step out of my vehicle and saw my Walther stuck inside the waistband of my jeans which could cause him to have reason to react.
But lets say that the officer who stops you gives you the benefit of the doubt and assumes that you just have a lead foot. He approaches your vehicle, obtains your drivers license and engages you in conversation about your driving habits. He then notices the butt of your pistol as you lean over to get your registration out of the glove box.
His RAS is that you are armed with a dangerous weapon ( which can be a Felony crime), and that RAS triggers two things:
First off it triggers the ability of the officer to search you and to act in a much more aggressive manner using tactics from the perspective of officer safety. He can draw his weapon, he can physically restrain you into a position where he has dominance over your movements or gains him tactical advantage prior to conducting a search of your person , he may search your person, seize your firearm during the duration of his stop, and can place you in handcuffs for the purpose of officer safety. Yet you are not under arrest.
The Officer is not obligated to assume at the moment he surprisingly becomes aware you are armed that you are in compliance with the laws related to having a permit, and he is permitted to first insure his own safety by taking the weapon into his temporary custody. Officer Safety Doctrine demands he be proactive and act aggressively in his own safety interests before conducting further investigation by questioning you. He is not obligated to assume that because you are armed you are just a citizen exercising your right to be armed, and there are a long list of dead and seriously wounded officers to support this doctrine.
This is the classic Terry V. Ohio investigatory detention in a traffic violation situation.
The second thing this situation triggers is the doctrine of warrantless search of a vehicle under Michigan v. Long, which expanded the Terry doctrine to a warrantless search of vehicle compartments. Both cases allow for warrantless searches of vehicles under the circumstances I describe in the above paragraph. The RAS is the same, you are armed with a dangerous weapon, and the Officer is not obligated to assume that the weapon he takes from your person is the only weapon you have. The Officer may search the vehicle compartment for other weapons, and he may even search other occupants of the vehicle based on this type of RAS as he may assume others in the vehicle are armed or have access to weapons hidden from view inside the vehicle.
Being observed by a LEO that you are armed is in itself RAS under Terry and Michigan v. Long in any state where carrying without a license is an offense. The officer is allowed first and foremost to act to insure his own safety BEFORE attempting to make any further determinations as to if you are legally armed.
Since many of us do OC and CCW, not to place yourself in the shoes of the Officer and look at things from his perspective is not only foolish, but under many seemingly innocent circumstances, down right dangerous.
By being proactive during a traffic stop and informing the officer you are "legally armed" as opposed to "obviously armed perhaps in violation of the law" you accomplish several things:
1. First you put the officer more at ease with the situation, you are friendly and cooperative, and he will more than likely reciprocate .
2. You have proactively removed the RAS for the traffic stop to escalate into a more confrontational Terry Stop situation, by removing the possibility of passively provoking a legally justified, aggressive tactical response from the officer, who is under no obligated to assume your "good will" toward his safety.
3. You open the door to a much less confrontational educational opportunity to discuss CCW and OC with the individual officer in a manner that allows you to educate the individual officer, and perhaps gain an ally in our cause to make OC and CCW a non-starter issue with police officials who will have influence on legislation we have yet to encounter.
Police Officers in this nation encounter many armed individuals on an almost daily basis. Part of the sad truth about officers is that most of those they encounter with weapons are not citizens exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms, but instead are criminals who use those arms to threaten the safety of the public and endanger the lives of officers who try to protect us.
As citizens who have decided to take our own safety into consideration and arm ourselves, we can take two different avenues in our encounters with officers, one which will leave the officers with a positive impression of the greater OC and CCW community, or one which will leave them with the impression that some of us are simply "insert your favorite explicative" looking for a confrontation.
Officers who encounter us are going to voice their experiences up the chain of command, and if the dominate view they express is that OCers' and even some CCW'ers are actively seeking confrontations with police officers, the response from the command level will be to voice opposition when they are asked to comment on legislation which support expansion of the right of OC or CCW, or to support the passage of legislation restricting OC and CCW which we would oppose.
I resubmit that our cause is best served through creative and proactive positive encounters with police officers, not only at the street level, but also at the supervisory and command levels. We need to work with those who develop the training programs for officers and dispatchers on critical information they need in handling "man with a gun calls" and we need to work with police and the media to educate the general public that just because they observe someone with a weapon there is not necessarily a crime being committed. I assure you that a few isolated segments on APT or the Birmingham TV stations is not sufficient.
From a practical standpoint, with each confrontational encounter between LEO's and OC/CCW practitioners, there also comes a risk that a situation may occur with tragic consequences. An Officer may be killed by a person he concludes is simply OCing, or an OCer may be killed by an officer who misinterprets the OCers actions. Such an outcome will have far reaching consequences, adverse public reaction to OC/CCW, and possible adverse legislative action which will roll back the cause of not only OC but also CCW.
Currently with the exception of the Illinois, CCW and OC have the law and the Constitution on our side, what we clearly do not have is a totality of support and acceptance from the general public, the media, our legislators, or the Law Enforcement Community, for the concept of OC and CCW and confrontational encounters with law enforcement will not convince them to join us rather than to oppose us.
Being right, or it seems for some more like "self-righteous", is one thing, winning is a whole other game and some of you do not seem to grasp the rules for winning.
