Dumb move

[MKEgal]

BTW, I have seen the wrong end of a firearm. I know how I react. It really gets me irritated. Extremely irritated.

::chuckling::
I can understand that. After I stopped being scared for my life, I got mad.
From what's been posted about this incident, I think the cop was out of line.
Ordering someone out of a car for speeding? Then threatening his life??

It is important to remember that not all OCers are law abiding citizens

The FBI says otherwise. This report:
"Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers"
PDFs available at http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/08/violent-encounters.html
says in part that criminals do not openly carry, and practically never use holsters. (IIRC, that's from chapter 4.)

BTW, welcome to the forum.

 

[protias]

He was talking about drawing your gun on someone that has a holstered gun. English is sometimes a very imprecise language, and you have to read a bit more carefully.

I asked because that is the way he wrote it. English is a fairly exacting language. Writing it a certain way can lead to misinterpretation. Sure, English isn't as exact as Koine Greek, but it is pretty darn good!

Because it's, well, a gun. It doesn't surprise me at all that a cop wants his 'suspects" unarmed during an interview.

How does a holstered gun mean anything? Last time I checked, guns don't just jump out and start shooting people. If that was the case, all my firearms are defective.

But they used to in the wild west.

How long ago was the wild west? Over 100 years ago! Not only that, but they didn't make a whole lot of CC holsters. How many criminals use holsters or even OC? I keep hearing from a few people that say criminals OC. I continue to ask for proof and no one has ever given me any.

 

[Brimstone Baritone]

I know I'm late to the party, but if the officer wanted the 'tactical advantage' of having the gun drawn first, he could have kept it at low ready. Think about it! You aren't supposed to point a gun at something unless you are willing to destroy it. I'm not entirely comfortable with the number of people who are showing their willingness to destroy me just for having a holstered firearm.

 

[eye95]

While I do NOT agree that a holstered firearm constitutes a threat to a police officer, what I can testify to is the fact that at the low ready is no substitute for being aimed and trained at the subject. When I was in Iraq we went to weapons training where we were using electronic mock-ups of our firearms and were presented with scenarios on video. When a shooter appears out of a crowd or from behind concealment, you would be amazed at how long it seems to take to bring the gun from low ready to on target and shoot. It absolutely amazed me. Doc Holiday I ain't... and it cost me my life... at least in the simulator.

There is a world of difference between a guy coming from concealment in a war zone who may already have a weapon at the ready, and a citizen with a holstered firearm. The LEO should not aim his weapon at the citizen.

 

[eye95]

And I agree. That's why I started my post with:

"While I do NOT agree that a holstered firearm constitutes a threat to a police officer"

I guess what I am trying to say is: IF you feel that a person IS a legitimate threat to your life, at least for myself, at the low ready is not good enough.

And the claims of the OP, way back when, that he could out-draw and out-shoot a LEO with his weapon already drawn is just plain B.S.

I agree with all of that. If I aim my weapon at a person, it is because I want to be within a fraction of a second of firing on him. The safety will be off and my finger will be on the trigger. The level of readiness just below that for me will be unholstered, safety off, pointed at the ground, finger along barrel. That is the highest state of readiness that the officer should have been in.

I thought I saw some bluster in the OP too.

 

[since9]

And the claims of the OP, way back when, that he could out-draw and out-shoot a LEO with his weapon already drawn is just plain B.S.

The quickest possible response time for humans, from seeing a visual signal, to pulling the trigger, is around 16/100ths of a second. Meanwhile, the quickest action time for humans is approximately half that.

Put simply, an accomplished shooter can draw and fire in about half the time it takes someone at the ready to respond to someone drawing at firing! (the best, such as Bob Munden, have been recorded doing it in about 1/5th the time). Assuming about 20 feet of distance, and velocities of 1,000 fps, and there's only an additional 0.02 second (2/100ths of a second) for a total of 0.10 seconds. Thus, the LEO in this circumstance would be hit by a perp's bullet approximately 0.06 seconds before he could pull the trigger himself.

It's for these reasons gunfights usually went to the first person to draw, provided both gunmen were fast and accurate. If the first person who drew missed, it would usually go to the other gunman.

Bottom line, an LEO drawing down on an OCer affords himself little additional protection. Furthermore, as eye95 mentioned, the OCer isn't the one an officer needs to worry about anyway. It's the criminal who conceals or brandishes his firearm that should given an LEO cause for concern.

An earlier poster mentioned an LEO's principle concern is going home each night to his family. We OCers share the same desire, and it's not realistic for an LEO to believe he shouldn't have to live in fear of being unnecessarily drawn on while we OCers don't experience the same thing during a stop.

Thus, if I may make a suggestion to the LEOs: We're not going to draw down on one another, or even you just because someone is carrying a firearm. Please extend us a little common courtesy and trust. If we're obeying the directions of a law enforcement official in a calm, controlled manner, please don't draw down on us simply because we're lawfully carrying a firearm. It's not only unnecessary (and rude), but it puts us at unnecessary risk in case of accidental discharge.

If I aim my weapon at a person, it is because I want to be within a fraction of a second of firing on him. The safety will be off and my finger will be on the trigger. The level of readiness just below that for me will be unholstered, safety off, pointed at the ground, finger along barrel. That is the highest state of readiness that the officer should have been in.

And that's a perfectly acceptable state! Accidental discharge in this configuration will leave a pockmark in the road, rather than my face.

 

[Grapeshot]

Sry. Lol. Any way. I pulled over and was asked over the PA to exit the vehicle and move to the rear of my truck. No big deal right? About the time I get there he is exiting his vehicle. I saw his eyes drop to my side arm. I knew what was coming by how big his eyes had gotten.
He dropped his clip board and drew on me. I'm well trained both on my own and by the military. Being on the buisiness end of a firearm is a serious situation to be in. I o ly hesitated because he was a LEO. I know my abilities and this could have gone much worse. I have tremendous respect for law enforcement , but t that moment I was in fear of my life

Late into this.

The LEO involved was from what dept?

Have you talked to Chief Stelly about this? You say you've had a CCW for 10 years, you must know him - Mire and Rayne are not that large.

 

[eye95]

Maybe an absolute expert, specifically poised to draw, can accurately draw and fire in 8/100 of a second (I still have doubts about that), but even a reasonably trained person is going to take the major part of a second or more.

 

[ODA 226]

As a former LEO, I'm not calling the OP a liar, but this story smells fishy to me.

The LEO ordered him OUT of the car for a routine traffic stop? I don't think so. LEO's are trained to keep people IN their cars during traffic stops as a control measure.

If it was a FELONY vehicle stop, the LEO would have had his weapon drawn immediately upon initiating the stop.

Maybe the OP is leaving out a huge part of the story. I don't put much credibility in the story as it is written now.

 

[Grapeshot]

Apparently the OP did not record the alleged event and haven't heard a word about FOIA request to include dash cam from the officer's vehicle. Wonder why not?

 

[eye95]

The OP has not been here in over a month. His credibility is taking a big hit.

Still, we've had a healthy discussion on whether and when LEOs should point their firearms at a citizen.

 

[Thundar]

It's also helpful to think of it from the officer's point of view, put yourself in an officers shoes. Police officers want to be able to go home to their family every night just as you and I do. As stated earlier in this thread, a person who is drawn down upon a person with a holstered weapon has the upper hand, because if the other person decides to try to fire upon the officer, by the time the person gets his weapon out of his holster, the officer will be able to fire and protect himself.

If the officer would leave his firearm in his holster every time he saw a gun that is properly holstered and legal, that officer would be at a severe disadvantage if that person decides to draw his weapon upon the officer.

It is important to remember that not all OCers are law abiding citizens like most of us on these forums, and the mere fact that a person is a LEO makes them a target for armed criminals. The officer doesn't know if you are a criminal or not.

Officers, and sometimes armed citizens in distress, often need to make split second decisions that are a matter of life and death. That split second decision to draw down might have saved that officers life is you were a criminal that wanted to shoot cops. If you were that officer, you would want to do everything in your power to ensure your safety. So I believe that the officer was justified in drawing down on you to maintain the upper hand in case you turned out to be a criminal with a taste for cop blood.

Best thing to remember is that the officer just wants to end his shift safely and go home alive and well, just as you and I.

I am only politely offering my opinion on the subject and have no ill-intentions with this post. I am an OC'er myself and fully support OC, however I also support Police Officers being able to go home to their families.

Woah, quite the first post eh?

It's also helpful to think of it from the citizen’s point of view, put yourself in a citizens shoes. Citizens want to be able to go home to their family every night just as you and I do. As stated earlier in this thread, a person who is drawn down upon a person with a holstered weapon has the upper hand, because if the other person decides to try to fire upon the citizen, by the time the person gets his weapon out of his holster, the citizen will be able to fire and protect himself.

If the citizen would leave his firearm in his holster every time he saw a gun that is properly holstered and legal, that citizen would be at a severe disadvantage if that person decides to draw his weapon upon the citizen.

It is important to remember that not all LEOs are law abiding citizens like most of us on these forums, and the mere fact that a person is a citizen makes them a target for armed criminals. The citizen doesn't know if you are a criminal or not.

Officers, and sometimes armed citizens in distress, often need to make split second decisions that are a matter of life and death. That split second decision to draw down might have saved that citizens life is you were a criminal that wanted to shoot citizens. If you were that citizenr, you would want to do everything in your power to ensure your safety. So I believe that the citizen was justified in drawing down on the LEO to maintain the upper hand in case you turned out to be a criminal with a taste for citizen blood.

Best thing to remember is that the citizen just wants to end his shift safely and go home alive and well, just as you and I.

I am only politely offering my opinion on the subject and have no ill-intentions with this post. I am an OC'er myself and fully support OC, however I also support citizens being able to go home to their families.

 

[bobzilla]

The FBI says otherwise. This report:
"Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers"
PDFs available at http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/08/violent-encounters.html
says in part that criminals do not openly carry, and practically never use holsters. (IIRC, that's from chapter 4.)

BTW, welcome to the forum.

Statistics and research are nice, but it is not accurate if you say that all criminals do not openly carry. Can you account for every single criminal out there? No.

This is a tricky situation that has MANY different variables, and it is very hard to support an opinion either way unless you were there yourself and knew the exact feelings of the officer and the OP and exactly how all of those variables play into the situation.

Thanks for welcoming me to the site!

 

[protias]

Statistics and research are nice, but it is not accurate if you say that all criminals do not openly carry. Can you account for every single criminal out there? No.

This is a tricky situation that has MANY different variables, and it is very hard to support an opinion either way unless you were there yourself and knew the exact feelings of the officer and the OP and exactly how all of those variables play into the situation.

Thanks for welcoming me to the site!

Show me a criminal who does? I'm of course excluding corrupt police.

http://www.amazon.com/Cop-Out-Enfor...=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1290279320&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Legal-Minds-D...TF8&coliid=I3TMMJKY9L9AEQ&colid=2TDVPZXV53DTZ

 

[Grapeshot]

Statistics and research are nice, but it is not accurate if you say that all criminals do not openly carry. Can you account for every single criminal out there? No.

This is a tricky situation that has MANY different variables, and it is very hard to support an opinion either way unless you were there yourself and knew the exact feelings of the officer and the OP and exactly how all of those variables play into the situation.

Thanks for welcoming me to the site!

Statistics and research are not "nice" they represent in their purest form data collection and study, substantiated by empirical evidence. As virtually no felon or wannabe gang banger wants to advertise his proclivity for criminal conduct - in fact there are solid reason for their selecting to hide/conceal the intentions. Q.E.D. it is a valid conclusion that virtually NO criminals OC.

Conversely, can you cite 1 or 2 cases where a criminal (prior convictions req.) were OCing at the time they were out and about in public? Be forewarned that when and if you accomplish this, I intend to show you that the resultant numerical ratio will yield the decimal equivalent of something like .000001% - in other words statistically non-existent.

Good to have you here and sharing thoughts with us.

 

[eye95]

Statistics and research are nice, but it is not accurate if you say that all criminals do not openly carry. Can you account for every single criminal out there? No.

This is a tricky situation that has MANY different variables, and it is very hard to support an opinion either way unless you were there yourself and knew the exact feelings of the officer and the OP and exactly how all of those variables play into the situation.

Thanks for welcoming me to the site!

Be careful that you are not confusing "brandish" and "open carry." Open carry, as defined here (and would be the lawful and safe way that open carriers generally advocate) would be properly holstered. Bad guys don't OC. I am not saying that not one ever will. But I know of zero cases where a bad guy OCed a properly holstered gun. They conceal (usually unlawfully) or they brandish.

If you can produce some support that, other than very isolated exceptions (I know of none), bad guys are carrying properly holstered guns, I'd be interested to hear it.

Otherwise (as is almost surely the case), I call BS.

 

[Slidell Jim]

Ordered to exit vehicle SOP?

I think there are a lot of missing details here. Speeding a few miles over, does not warrant, what sounds to me like a felony stop. Smells fishy

actually come to think of it, yea leo's dont tell you to get out and move to the rear for speeding. were you driving a stolen vehicle? lol

Seems to be SOP from the Louisiana state Police to call over the PA and order you from the vehicle. I have gotten stopped for speeding once and for expired registration once (read my illegal stop and search for further info ) by a State Trooper, and both times I was immediately ordered out of my vehicle.

 

[rickc1962]

He was talking about drawing your gun on someone that has a holstered gun. English is sometimes a very imprecise language, and you have to read a bit more carefully.



Because it's, well, a gun. It doesn't surprise me at all that a cop wants his 'suspects" unarmed during an interview.



But they used to in the wild west.

First off saying the wild west insted of the old west is a mistatement,New York City was more deadly then Dodge City in the 1880s.Second off in Wy. and Az. I have had encounters with LEOs, nothing serious, a headlite out, someone called over seeing my firearm, me calling LEO over someone urinating in front of my wife and so on, NEVER has LEO ever pulled a gun on me or made me desarm.

 

[Claytron]

You don't read very well.

I said AFTER everything had settled down. I am NOT stupid.

But afterward we would have had that little chat.

BTW, I have seen the wrong end of a firearm. I know how I react. It really gets me irritated. Extremely irritated.

--Moderator deleted--

 

[Roger Mosley Jr]

After reading these posts, I have yet to see one that wants to know if you asked for his supervisor. Why wait to complain. If the LEo was in fact wrong, his supervisor could have taken action at that time or explained in greater detail why things went as they did.:idea: