LEO's "Advice" (BUACHOOO!!!)

BUAAAAACHOOO!!! I'm allergic to my own topic! That was a sneeze, for those who don't get my humor.

I had a lengthy conversation tonight with my college professor. He is "really into guns," but as he told me tonight, refuses to carry one after talking to a local "LEO Friend" of his. This Leo told him that carrying a gun has a lot of liabilities, and could land you in jail, just for carrying.

This LEO believes that if you should: 1) draw your weapon to show a friend (STUPID to do anyway), in public, that it could land you in jail. 2) If you defend yourself, and the perp lives, you now belong to him (the perp), because he will sue you for everything (even if he was going to kill you). 3) A cop can stop you, and ticket you for openly carrying a gun (even the professor know otherwise). 4) If you shoot someone, in defense of another, you could land in jail, or have "legal problems for 10 years," while the Gov.. takes away your right to carry a gun. 5) It's not "necessary" to carry a gun with all the "professionals" around.

BUAAAAAACCCHHHOOOO!!!!

Sniff....

Big flaw in Logic....

Sniff....

Well I think my allergies are clearing up a bit. Hope ya'll like the post!

RebelWolf

Sounds like a "professional" victim! Have you suggested that he register and become familiar with his rights and common sense thru this forum?

Cops lie. I don't understand why people ask them questions. If they don't know the answer they'll make it up. If they do know the answer they'll tell you what they want the answer to be.

carracer said:

Sounds like a "professional" victim! Have you suggested that he register and become familiar with his rights and common sense thru this forum?

Click to expand...

I have told him about the site. But this was geared more toward the following:

Beau said:

Cops lie. I don't understand why people ask them questions. If they don't know the answer they'll make it up. If they do know the answer they'll tell you what they want the answer to be.

Click to expand...

^^^^Which is why I posted this in the first place.

RebelWolf said:

...I had a lengthy conversation tonight with my college professor. He is "really into guns," but as he told me tonight, refuses to carry one after talking to a local "LEO Friend" of his. This Leo told him that carrying a gun has a lot of liabilities, and could land you in jail, just for carrying.

This LEO believes that if you should: 1) draw your weapon to show a friend (STUPID to do anyway), in public, that it could land you in jail. 2) If you defend yourself, and the perp lives, you now belong to him (the perp), because he will sue you for everything (even if he was going to kill you). 3) A cop can stop you, and ticket you for openly carrying a gun (even the professor know otherwise). 4) If you shoot someone, in defense of another, you could land in jail, or have "legal problems for 10 years," while the Gov.. takes away your right to carry a gun. 5) It's not "necessary" to carry a gun with all the "professionals" around.

Big flaw in Logic....

RebelWolf

Click to expand...

I think I would have another long conversation with the professor. There is a BIG flaw in the logic. If the prof. knows the LEO was dead wrong about the question of OC, does that not make grounds to question the rest of the statement?

JamesB said:

I think I would have another long conversation with the professor. There is a BIG flaw in the logic. If the prof. knows the LEO was dead wrong about the question of OC, does that not make grounds to question the rest of the statement?

Click to expand...

This wasn't about OC in particular, it was about ANY Carry period. The professor is a very nice guy, and I respect him a great deal. It's the LEO's misinformation that I was referring to. And while I agree that another conversation would be nice, it may not be "fruitful" when someone has already made up their mind on what is, or is not ok. I just hope that others learn that LEO's aren't the best people for legal advice, and are usually biassed toward Govt. control.

Peace,

RebelWolf

What the LEO is doing is not lying. It's called 'central tendency' in psychology.

He's seen a lot of actions, outcomes, events surrounding firearm use and without using a filter for those which don't apply, he's remembering (perhaps even embellishing) the worst of the worst and trying to be 'fair' (though dissuasive of carry), he thinks he's protecting the civilian from these hazards.

They're real in the LEO's mind. He has no civilian perspective so he can't evince one. It's really black and white to him, given that he's never thought about firearm carry from any other point of view.

gutshot said:

Everything this LEO said is true, but the same applies to any LEO who carries a gun. They "could" be exposed to the same risks. It's is not very likely, but it "could" happen. Carrying a gun is serious business and should not be undertaken without knowing the risks and accepting them. If you are not comfortable with the risks you should leave your gun at home. Of course, there are risks involved it that course of action, too. Life is full of risks, they are unavoidable.

Click to expand...

Actually, the LEO was quite wrong on most counts.

1. There's no law specifically referring to brandishing in CO. The relevant charges would probably be more along the lines of menacing or disorderly conduct depending on how the cops were notified.
2. CO has a Civil Immunity Clause, meaning if you use lethal force and your self-defense is legally justified, no one can take you to civil court for damages.
3. OC is perfectly legal in the state of CO, and the open carry of a firearm is not sufficient reason for detaining a citizen. This standard is upheld in the highest courts.
4. This one is a big "Maybe." Could something like this happen if it wasn't a clear cut case of defense. Sure, it could, but it's highly unlikely.
5. Pshh... I don't think this one really needs addressing, especially with stories like these in the news. Remember, when seconds count, the "professionals" are just minutes away.

Badger Johnson said:

What the LEO is doing is not lying. It's called 'central tendency' in psychology.

He's seen a lot of actions, outcomes, events surrounding firearm use and without using a filter for those which don't apply, he's remembering (perhaps even embellishing) the worst of the worst and trying to be 'fair' (though dissuasive of carry), he thinks he's protecting the civilian from these hazards.

They're real in the LEO's mind. He has no civilian perspective so he can't evince one. It's really black and white to him, given that he's never thought about firearm carry from any other point of view.

Click to expand...

You bring up some good points, Badger. Your average LEO isn't without any civilian reference, however. All of them have at least 18 years before they joined the force, and most city police departments require a 4-year degree, so you're looking at another 4 years as an adult, albeit in the protective, nearly ubiquitous anti-gun mentality on campus. On top of that, while some police departments have a maximum age (usually 35), some do not, and so accept adults from all walks of life. An acquaintance of mine joined the local department after retiring from the military. He was 44 when he joined.

Still, if an LEO's first real exposure to firearms was at the academy, I think it's likely they'll be viewing a handgun as a "police law-enforcement tool," rather than as most pro-gun Americans view them.

Polynikes said:

2. CO has a Civil Immunity Clause, meaning if you use lethal force and your self-defense is legally justified, no one can take you to civil court for damages.

Click to expand...

This did not appear to stop the recent lawsuit against the owners of an automobile-related business, one of whom shot and killed a fleeing/hiding burglar. The family sued and was awarded over $300k, despite the fact the AG refused to press any criminal charges.

Should this never have gone to civil trial?

I didn't think Colorado had a civil immunity clause . Cite please

since9 said:

You bring up some good points, Badger.

Click to expand...

Though one might be tempted to say the LEO is lying, lame, or whatever, it's important to note that people don't consider themselves 'bad', or evil, they justify.

To try to understand an attitude, the way is to seek out root causes. My root cause analysis is that the guy just hadn't considered a different POV because he identifies the firearm as a LEO enforcement and abatement tool.

When a LEO gets MAD, or tweaked, they sometimes go to their inner child and demonstrate behavior that even THEY are not really proud of when they calm down. The key is to be empowered by above, and to resist and learn how NOT to go to the inner child and take frustrations out on civilians.

It's up to us to defuse and to try and keep it professional and not send the LEO stopping you to their 'bad place'. We carry the burden of calm, iow. Sometimes it works.

$.02

Beau said:

I didn't think Colorado had a civil immunity clause . Cite please

Click to expand...

I believe this is what you want.

Half Live said:

I believe this is what you want.

Click to expand...

According to this, it appears the "physical force was reasonable and appropriate to prevent injury to himself or herself or to others" clause rules. Apparently, the actions of the garage owners who chased down, shot, and killed the armed intruder-robber were beyond "reasonable and appropriate."

There are many hypothetical scenarios that could result in harrassment, arrest, etc. when it comes to the open or concealed carry of a handgun, but...in the end, what "carry" is all about is personal defense and the right we have to keep and bear arms.

I hope I'm never in a situation to pull my handgun in self defense, much less use it, but I'd rather have it on my person and take the risk of the abovementioned scenarios than to leave it at home and be attacked while out in public (or in my own home, for that matter).

Beau said:

Cops lie.

Click to expand...

.

I personally like the line "there is no reason to carry with the professionals around". This is great the guys at the quary in California will be glad to hear that they are safe since the professionals will protect them. Wait they are dead they can't hear us tell them that.....this is a sarcastic remark aimed at this cop.

Asking a cop about constitutional law is like asking the garbage man about theoretical physics. Actually, I'd listen to the garbage man's answer with more credulity.

I believe....

I believe anything and everything when a police officer says.... This COULD happen to you....

Because what ever they say to you with out your lawyer present is TRUE.... It could happen to you..

Now what will hold up in court is a horse of a different color.

In Colorado - " The right of NO PERSON to keep & bear arms in defense of their home, person, or property shall be called into question............."

All Colorado LEO's have sworn an oath to uphold that (constitutionally enforced ) principle.

Badge-bearers have a dangerous, and necessary job confronting them. Somehow, someway they have to adapt to the concept that CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR is the focus of their duties.

Badger Johnson said:

It's up to us to defuse and to try and keep it professional and not send the LEO stopping you to their 'bad place'. We carry the burden of calm, iow. Sometimes it works.

Click to expand...

Might have a t-shirt made up: The Burden of Calm.

Nah.

Your point is valid, though. Pushing buttons isn't good behavior in any situation involving other human beings.