Oklahoma trooper...get a life

OC for ME said:

I suspect that discussions here on OCDO will have little impact on your daily routine while on the clock.

Click to expand...

For the most part no. What I do attempt to do is mediate between the 2. Like I said previous I have a life and I have a family so yes I want to go home safe. Sadly this sometimes causes concern for carriers and often they feel they have been mistreated. I do attempt to go above and beyond my job though and speak to people in a manner that I would love to be spoken too often times its been cited that I amaze people I dont get into shouting matches or name calling like "Other" Leos do.

If I had my way every able bodied mentaly competent person in this country would own a firearm and know how to use it. I am proud of my heritage and the right to bare arms is amazing.

Do I defend all LEOS for their actions? Not anymore then I do Carriers for their actions. people on both sides have hot headed people who should not carry or work as a leo. its plain and simple and its called being human.

On here I hear it all and see it all. People mad because an officer asked them for I.D. but then get mad when they see someone that scares the living daylights out of them (And I have seen some pretty scary people carry) and get mad because the officer cant do anything about it.

I just try to be a voice for both sides is all.

Glock 1st fan said:

For the most part no. What I do attempt to do is mediate between the 2. Like I said previous I have a life and I have a family so yes I want to go home safe. Sadly this sometimes causes concern for carriers and often they feel they have been mistreated. I do attempt to go above and beyond my job though and speak to people in a manner that I would love to be spoken too often times its been cited that I amaze people I don't get into shouting matches or name calling like "Other" Leos do.

If I had my way every able bodied mentally competent person in this country would own a firearm and know how to use it. I am proud of my heritage and the right to bare arms is amazing.

Do I defend all LEOS for their actions? Not anymore then I do Carriers for their actions. people on both sides have hot headed people who should not carry or work as a leo. its plain and simple and its called being human.

On here I hear it all and see it all. People mad because an officer asked them for I.D. but then get mad when they see someone that scares the living daylights out of them (And I have seen some pretty scary people carry) and get mad because the officer cant do anything about it.

I just try to be a voice for both sides is all.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the insight.

I am wondering which is harder to accomplish, firing a bad cop, or depriving a citizen of his 2A right.....I'll give you only one chance at the question.

Please be safe and thanks again for your dedication to the job.

OC for ME said:

Thanks for the insight.

I am wondering which is harder to accomplish, firing a bad cop, or depriving a citizen of his 2A right.....I'll give you only one chance at the question.

Please be safe and thanks again for your dedication to the job.

Click to expand...

LOL It depends on variables like everything else. For example you have to ask who is his supervisors?Are they 2A supporters or they against it. Does he work for the fed, state, county local etc..... and then you have to look at the reputation of the area. A 2Aer is doomed instantly in California without any questions asked where in Oklahoma some judges, officers etc are 2a supportive.

As depriving the rights again you have to ask as I mentioned above what are the circumstances and where is the location. Id say in Oklahoma firing a bad cop can be difficult but it can be done. As for 2A supporter you have to admit alot has been in favor of the carrier here in more recent days.

I think that you clearly saw my tongue planted firmly in my cheek with that question. Seriously though, this is the OK sub-forum and as such the question is state specific.

It is unfortunate that a OCer must hope that a cop, his LEA, and local prosecutors/judges are 2A "friendly" when I presume that they all swore, or affirmed, a oath to follow the constitution.

Poor Trooper Green

Trooper Green is fighting his suspension....I have been called as a witness to his hearing

IMHO if Eric Holder tells us we don't have to have an ID to vote, then I'm not going to produce an ID just to appease a over zellous cop if I have done nothing wrong.

First off let me say that this is obviously a touchy subject for some so I will try to be careful of my words.

Why did our legislators feel the need to put a must produce ID and carry permit when asked by LEO's provision in our SDA even without articulate suspicion of a crime? Exercising our rights is not a crime nor does it require justification (even a ruling of the supreme court, I cant say for sure which one).

Understandably driving a car is not a constitutional protected right but bearing arms is. I don't need a permission slip to practice my religion, or my speech, or my freedom of expression. Why then do or should we need a permission slip to practice our 2a right?

I can understand checking a DL of someone who is driving on a highway or had been or about to, in order to establish the legality compliance of said privilege not right. But I don't agree with the mentality of doing so to avoid "egg in your face" or flack from others as opposed to just doing so to be safe or to do the best job you can do in keeping the general public safe, but also respecting the civil rights of the people and not treating everyone as a criminal all while keeping your guard up to make it home safe at the end of the day.

As for the OP I agree with his dispute of notifying when it was only a welfare check and commend him for standing his ground on that. However I don't entirely agree with the putting his daughter in danger. I agree that if the officer in this case saw her handle the firearm mistakenly assumed she was going to use it to hurt him then shoot an innocent child, then she was in danger. But if the child was taught how to properly handle and be safe with a firearm (this should be taught at a young age, kids are smarter than most will give them credit for), then outside of the officer(s) seeing her handle the gun and react badly then a educated child was never in danger simply by being unsupervised in the presence of a firearm.

To many people this day in age don't know their rights or the law (something that should be taught in our schools)or have respect for others, but also to many LEO's don't know the law and don't have respect for others (as seen by abusing their authority and violating peoples civil liberties). However there are those that do (on both sides) but the bad actions of those that don't causes people to judge others based on those bad actions. Until everyone has respect for others even with their failures this will continue to show its ugly face.

We have come a long way to where we are today but we still have a long way to go. To all those who seek these goals, Thank you for your hard work and diligence. To the OP thank you for sharing your post with us and standing up for not only your rights but all of ours in the long run, God bless.

Robert318 said:

...I can understand checking a DL of someone who is driving on a highway or had been or about to, in order to establish the legality compliance of said privilege not right...

Click to expand...

So, checkpoints at every highway entrance, right?

On the contrary, someone should be assumed to be licensed unless you have reason to believe they are not.

Glock 1st fan said:

Because of this very problem I think you will find MOST LEOs simply dont mess with the firearms issue because its so delicate.

Click to expand...

Why is it delicate? Either you as a LEO have probable cause or you don't. If you don't you can observe and seeing an out in the open properly holstered firearm should just go pursue ACTUAL criminals.

I dont and for this reason if there is a reason I feel I need to discuss with an individual his carrying a firearm I am very polite about it and up front inform the person of my intentions. An example would be "Sir you are not required to show me your permit as you know however would you be ok if I ask for it?" If they reply no and I have no reason to push the envelope I leave it alone. I dont try to be a butt and I dont try to show my authority.

Click to expand...

What if the person just completely ignores you? Do you then show your authority? From what does your authority derive in that case?

Also, have you EVER considered that while you are looking at a person with a properly holstered firearm behaving peacefully there are guys all around you with concealed firearms and unknown intent? Did you ever consider that down the street some thug is holding up a convenience store while you are asking questions that you have no right to demand for no reason and then being told no? If you had 10 open carriers at a Starbuck's meeting, would you go around and ask all 10 if you -may- check their ID, allowing the thug down the street to make their get away or would you THEN exercise discretion (you know that thing you have as a LEO to determine if someone is in commission of a crime or merely drinking coffee) and go finish your patrol?

Just wondering.

MAC702 said:

So, checkpoints at every highway entrance, right?

On the contrary, someone should be assumed to be licensed unless you have reason to believe they are not.

Click to expand...

MAC, he may have just unknowingly gone into the "it sounds like a reasonable regulation, so ok" mindset. It can happen sometimes.
I agree with being considered innocent until there is good reason to believe otherwise.

Robert318 said:

I can understand checking a DL of someone who is driving on a highway or had been or about to, in order to establish the legality compliance of said privilege not right. But I don't agree with the mentality of doing so to avoid "egg in your face" or flack from others as opposed to just doing so to be safe or to do the best job you can do in keeping the general public safe, but also respecting the civil rights of the people and not treating everyone as a criminal all while keeping your guard up to make it home safe at the end of the day.

Click to expand...

Maverick9 said:

Why is it delicate? Either you as a LEO have probable cause or you don't. If you don't you can observe and seeing an out in the open properly holstered firearm should just go pursue ACTUAL criminals.


What if the person just completely ignores you? Do you then show your authority? From what does your authority derive in that case?

Also, have you EVER considered that while you are looking at a person with a properly holstered firearm behaving peacefully there are guys all around you with concealed firearms and unknown intent? Did you ever consider that down the street some thug is holding up a convenience store while you are asking questions that you have no right to demand for no reason and then being told no? If you had 10 open carriers at a Starbuck's meeting, would you go around and ask all 10 if you -may- check their ID, allowing the thug down the street to make their get away or would you THEN exercise discretion (you know that thing you have as a LEO to determine if someone is in commission of a crime or merely drinking coffee) and go finish your patrol?

Just wondering.

Click to expand...

We strive for the parts I bolded. Citing to authority, and discretion (discerning threats from non-threats).

Maverick, years of erroneous programming by the edge-uh-mah-cation system will take some time to undo. As of now, I'm glad Glock 1st Fan at least understands that the 2A is not a permission granted by the Constitution, but a Right.

MAC702 said:

So, checkpoints at every highway entrance, right?

On the contrary, someone should be assumed to be licensed unless you have reason to believe they are not.

Click to expand...

Seriously, thats what you got from that comment? Of course I don't think there should be check points at the entrances to highway / roads etc.. But lets be realistic and not be imaginary, contrary to what most people think the police have no legal duty to protect individuals but to protect society as a whole, also to uphold / enforce the law. Therefore I can understand them checking a DL when coming into contact with someone on the road that obviously didn't walk or ride a bike to get there but drove. So if they didn't ask then would they be doing their job? Remember a DL is a privilege not a right, there are a lot of people abusing that and driving on our roads without a DL or insurance, which all of us that jump through those hoops are paying for their abuse.

Maverick9 said:

Why is it delicate? Either you as a LEO have probable cause or you don't. If you don't you can observe and seeing an out in the open properly holstered firearm should just go pursue ACTUAL criminals.


What if the person just completely ignores you? Do you then show your authority? From what does your authority derive in that case?

Also, have you EVER considered that while you are looking at a person with a properly holstered firearm behaving peacefully there are guys all around you with concealed firearms and unknown intent? Did you ever consider that down the street some thug is holding up a convenience store while you are asking questions that you have no right to demand for no reason and then being told no? If you had 10 open carriers at a Starbuck's meeting, would you go around and ask all 10 if you -may- check their ID, allowing the thug down the street to make their get away or would you THEN exercise discretion (you know that thing you have as a LEO to determine if someone is in commission of a crime or merely drinking coffee) and go finish your patrol?

Just wondering.

Click to expand...

WOW talk about beating a dead horse. It really was explained above. As I stated though and to answer your question I dont demand anything except where the law requires it. The law clearly states that when an officer is doing his duty you have to inform him if you are carrying a firearm. If it is a casual run in where you are passing them on a sidewalk then you do not have to tell him.

I hope this helps but really too tired to retype the same things over and over.

Glock 1st fan said:

WOW talk about beating a dead horse. It really was explained above. As I stated though and to answer your question I dont demand anything except where the law requires it. The law clearly states that when an officer is doing his duty you have to inform him if you are carrying a firearm. If it is a casual run in where you are passing them on a sidewalk then you do not have to tell him.

I hope this helps but really too tired to retype the same things over and over.

Click to expand...

Can you cite the law that says I have to inform an officer when they are doing their duty? The only reasons I can find are 1) arrest, 2) detainment, 3) routine traffic stop. Unless you consider any contact with an officer to be a detainment, I don't have to tell them anything.

hrdware said:

Can you cite the law that says I have to inform an officer when they are doing their duty? The only reasons I can find are 1) arrest, 2) detainment, 3) routine traffic stop. ...

Click to expand...

Actually, isn't #3 just a subset of #2?

So I agree with you. The circumstances of the OP are neither.

Back on track

Trooper Green was suspended without pay for ONE DAY!!....for Placing a readily available firearm accessible to an occupant of a vehicle in which he was investigating.

Now.....Trooper Green "ordered" an occupant to get back in a vehicle after not securing a firearm. The occupant in question was a minor.

If you or I would have done that we would have been charged with Child Endangerment.. Facing jail time and the like.....

He is fighting the suspension, because he feels he did nothing wrong...What if the firearm remained loaded and my daughter moved it and it discharged, wounding her or anyone else? Is that what we need to show fault!!!

Until the Trooper was involved...the firearm was not accessible to my daughter.

Whether the minor was aware of gun safety or not.....An officer has a responsibility to protect himself and the occupants of the vehicle.

What Trooper Green did was nothing short of criminal!!

welcome to the ever expanding police state.

1911carrier said:

welcome to the ever expanding police state.

Click to expand...

Let's not go off on that tanget, please.

zekester said:

Trooper Green is fighting his suspension....I have been called as a witness to his hearing

Click to expand...

This is an admin hearing ... why can you not just provide an affidavit? Avoids cross-examination.

Hearing Dec 17

I was informed that it is possible this will not even get to the hearing.....His lawyer is trying to settle....If he succeeds....this entire story will never be seen by the public due to OK law. Trooper Green would get a clean slate....and I will not even know the outcome of the settlement.

Trying to get subpoena served to save records and especially the tape.

Must have a OK attorney to issue this subpoena.....suggestions?