So this girl called the police on me...


PDA






Nashmack
April 27, 2006, 12:29 AM
I was exiting an establishment called "The Firing Line" in Manchester NH this evening, and keep in mind this is an indoor range, with a rather large sign, carrying my uncased .22, action open, barrel pointed toward the ground. I placed the rifle in my trunk, got all my gear settled, and pulled out of the parking lot. I got about a quarter mile down the street, and that's when I noticed the blues behind me, so of course like a law abided liscenced driver should, I pulled over.

This is where things got interesting. The officer trained his spotlight on my driver's side mirror, opened his door, and drew his serviced pistol, and ordered me out of the vehicle. I complied, laid facedown on the ground with my hands behind my head, and was disarmed by said officer. Said officer asked me to produce my permit, which I did, and he looked it over for a minute before telling me I could stand up once again. When I asked the officer why he ordered me out of my vehicle, his response was: "We just had a call for a man fitting your description, driving a car with your plate numbers, exiting a building with a gun". Said officer and his backup almost laughed themselves into a hemmorhage when I explained that I had just come from The Firing Line.

Has anyone else here ever had a similar experience?:rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "So this girl called the police on me..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SSTHitman
April 27, 2006, 12:34 AM
Its funny the caller didnt mention what building she seen you coming out of or that the officers didnt get a hint after she told them the location.

cosine
April 27, 2006, 12:34 AM
Edit: Deleted inaccurate info...

Larry Ashcraft
April 27, 2006, 12:35 AM
Has anyone else here ever had a similar experience?
No. But then this is Colorado, still part of America. We don't need "permission" to own a handgun.

Things are going downhill faster then I imagined.

mikeb3185
April 27, 2006, 12:36 AM
no but at the range i shoot at (niagara gun range) people walk to their vehicles with un cased weapons all the time. i have never heard of anyone being stoped after leaving his range.
the thing you have to remember is people fear what they do not understand. and people have an irrational fear of firearms.

armoredman
April 27, 2006, 12:57 AM
In AZ, the cops would have asked what your favorite load is...

silicon wolverine
April 27, 2006, 01:13 AM
In SD the cops would have pulled you over and asked about it not pulled you over at gunpoint. If i was you id call and ask a lawyer about suing for excessive use of force.

SW

ApexinM3
April 27, 2006, 01:16 AM
I'm waiting for that day to come here in the Socialists Republic of Maryland. Of course I haven't traved with an uncased firearm in the cars as doing so & getting caught will get you crucified here in this state.:fire:

Sorry to here about your experience but from the sounds of it things worked themselves out. Ignorant woman-sometimes it's not bliss!:banghead:

Tom Servo
April 27, 2006, 01:44 AM
New Hampshire...wasn't there a long thread here about a year ago, involving a guy who got roughed up for open carry? I think it was at Barnes & Noble. A woman (who refused to identify herself to the operator) called 911, claiming he made her nervous. Police showed up and completely mishandled the situation.

Here in Georgia, I understand the operator is supposed to ask something along the lines of, "well, is he doing something with the gun?" Heck, my range is in a shopping center, and my friends and I have walked out with rifles of all stripes, and I've never had a problem.

mustanger98
April 27, 2006, 01:58 AM
I'm two or three hours drive north of Kennessaw, GA and I've carried my M1 Garand into the barber shop with no problem whatever. I knew my barber wanted to see it when it came in so I slung it, put on a big grin, and went about my business. During my haircut, my rifle was leaning right there on the counter. Nobody said anything negative. But then, I'm up here in the hills and guns are still pretty much commonplace.

Kim
April 27, 2006, 02:06 AM
The person who called must really get out of her little world. Bet she had never seen anyone walking with a firearm. Probably thought "The Firing Line" was some nasty capitalist business where employeers sent their poor employees to be told they are fired------kinda like a place Donald Trump would work. :eek:

c_yeager
April 27, 2006, 02:12 AM
Im not prepared to blame the cops on this one. They have to work with the information they are given, and in this case I bet they didnt get much. You have to accept that they will proceed with as much caution as possible based on what they know, we would all proceed the same. When they found out the call was erronious they immediatly behaved in accordance with their new knowledge of the situation.

sm
April 27, 2006, 02:44 AM
LEOs have job to do, seems to me you and they communicated well.

I'd been prone to ask the officers to send a vice cop and approach the lady that reported you. If officers asked why, tell them she was "loitering" and has the right "equipment", she might be a prostitute. ;)

Some folks do not think. Years ago I assisted in moving guns out of a gun store from a strip center. Been there a long long time, retiring and guns sold to a buddy dealer friend of his. Two doors down, was a beauty shop. Now understand we did this as best could to not attract attention. Even had UC and Uniformed LEO handy/ helping. Lady calls police station "folks with guns" station calls uniformed officers, who in turn tell the lady what the deal is.

Lady had been going to that Beauty shop for 7 or 8 years, never even knew the Gun Store existed. I mean the word "Gun" was part of the store name, and was on the strip center big sign, and front door, and parking spaces on curb directly in front of store. In that many years she never once saw any of this?

*sigh*

Hawkmoon
April 27, 2006, 02:47 AM
Im not prepared to blame the cops on this one. They have to work with the information they are given, and in this case I bet they didnt get much. You have to accept that they will proceed with as much caution as possible based on what they know, we would all proceed the same. When they found out the call was erronious they immediatly behaved in accordance with their new knowledge of the situation.
Yes, in this case (unlike the one with the chap who was manhandled by the police in the Barnes & Noble) it does appear that the officers handled the situation about as well as they could. However, as with the incident in the Barnes & Noble, it strikes me that the 911 dispatcher handled the call rather poorly. Especially since the previous B&N case has been discussed so widely (and I believe was also in Manchester), it's difficult for me to believe that the dispatchers aren't aware of it. So when the call came in, I have to wonder why the first question was not "What is he doing with the gun that you think is illegal?"

If the answer was "He put it in the trunk of his car," the appropriate response should have been "That's perfectly legal, M'am. Have a good evening. Goodbye."

silicon wolverine
April 27, 2006, 02:49 AM
Stupid people proliferate because this world has been made safe enough they survive long enough to procreate.

SW

Sgt Stevo
April 27, 2006, 02:55 AM
here in the silicon valley, they would have rolled SWAT,tased me, beat me, then sued me, for the PTSD they got, for doing it. :fire:

southernwarrior187
April 27, 2006, 02:59 AM
Truer words have never been said wolverine.

Bring back natural selection!

Zen21Tao
April 27, 2006, 04:44 AM
Has anyone else here ever had a similar experience?

I had the cops called on me a while back for carrying and uncased rifle from the trunk of my car into my apartment building (which is legal where I live). Before I get flamed let me say that I live in the wonderfully gun friendly state of Florida. I grew up in areas were uncased rifles, especially in the back window of trucks, are a common thing.

While walking back to my trunk for some ammo cans (I too had just returned from the range) I saw a line of squad cars creeping into the complex with officers wearing body armor carring shotguns creeping along side the cars. They approachem me and ordered me to put my hands up. From the very start the cops were real friendly and very professional. After they frisked me and found no guns they told be they had a call about someone in the parking lot with a gun. As I allowed them to enter my apartment and check my firearms they continued to say that the caller was barely understandable and it sounded to the dispatcher like she said something about "shooting". The cops took one of my guns at random and ran a serial number. It came back legal so they didn't even bother to check the rest.

As it turns out it the girl that called then was some whinny college liberal (I live in Gainesville. Home of UF) from a gun unfriendly state that was whining about someone walking around freely with firearms. The real reason she called them was based on a disagreement with the law allowing me to carry the guns opening to and from my vehicle. All of the officers there understood that she was an out of state looney. They basically told her she could take her ass back home if she didn't like Florida laws and then apologized to me for the whole ordeal.

ReadyontheRight
April 27, 2006, 04:53 AM
Stupid people proliferate because this world has been made safe enough they survive long enough to procreate.

SW

You are right on the money there SW.

SomeKid
April 27, 2006, 05:24 AM
I remember walking out of the front door of my house, and walked across the street. No big deal right?

I had an AK slung over my shoulder. As I neared the street, as bus full of kids passed by.

Nothing happened.

I loved living out in the woods like that.

crazed_ss
April 27, 2006, 06:53 AM
In CA, you have to have your weapons cased and unloaded when walking to and from the range. It's the law.. all the ranges have big signs informing customers of this. LEOs are the exception to this rule.

nipprdog
April 27, 2006, 07:04 AM
maybe she's related to this guy that thinks gun ranges rent guns and then allows them to leave the range with them. this is his letter to the editor. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060425/OPINION01/604250453/-1/ARCHIVE

Business should be ashamed of 'We rent guns' sign

It concerns me immensely the numbers of shootings that are occurring on the Northwestside of Indianapolis. I am a middle-school teacher in this area and am concerned for my students and their safety. Within three weeks we have witnessed a shooting outside the Eagle Highlands theater, a man murdered while parked in front of Sears at Lafayette Square Mall and most recently three people killed less than a mile from this same mall. Some have commented that they do not know why this is happening more frequently in this area. The answer can be found on a sign in front of a business on Lafayette Road, in front of the mall. "We rent guns" is displayed for everyone to read. As long as we glorify guns and openly advertise them the problem will only get worse. To the person who displays this sign, I say shame on you for allowing this to happen.

Devonai
April 27, 2006, 07:19 AM
I'm glad it ended well, Nashmack, and that the cops had a sense of humor. I would also laugh about the Little League diamond across the street and the parents who drop off their players in the Manchester Firing Line parking lot on game days!

As to this woman, I do not see how it's possible that she could see your weapon and not know where you were coming from. I suspect a disgruntled neighbor who wishes the Firing Line didn't exist.

El Tejon
April 27, 2006, 08:59 AM
No, and if it did I would be throwing a holy fit.:scrutiny:

Cacique500
April 27, 2006, 09:51 AM
As I allowed them to enter my apartment and check my firearms they continued to say that the caller was barely understandable and it sounded to the dispatcher like she said something about "shooting". The cops took one of my guns at random and ran a serial number. It came back legal so they didn't even bother to check the rest.

I would've been cooperative out in the parking lot. No way would they get to come in, inspect my firearms, and run a serial number on one of my firearms. :mad:

Waitone
April 27, 2006, 09:52 AM
Shame LE can't (or won't) close the loop on the ignorant caller (assuming ignorance and not activist's motives) and explain to her it is perfectly legal to carry a firearm out of a range and put in the trunk of a car. Don't make the call again and if it does reoccur the police will put her person face down in the road and toss her vehicle. This kind of nonsense happens because there is no pushback. :banghead:

Steelcore
April 27, 2006, 09:52 AM
You should have demanded the police charge the caller with filing a false police report.

AndyC
April 27, 2006, 10:14 AM
No harm done, no foul - why's everyone getting so bent out of shape over this? The cops were doing their job - sue them for excessive use of force? Geez - get a life, honestly.

Mikee Loxxer
April 27, 2006, 11:11 AM
Things like this make me glad I live in Nebraska. A couple weekends ago I was leaving my parents house to go shooting carrying my 1911 in a holster and walking to my van and saw the neighbor across the street getting into his truck. He had a Kalashnikov with a 30 round magazine in the magwell slung over his shoulder. He also had a bag that probably contained more ammunition and magazines with him. I nor any of the other neighbors thought anything of it. It sure is nice living in the United States.

Pilgrim
April 27, 2006, 11:20 AM
Stupid people proliferate because this world has been made safe enough they survive long enough to procreate.
The solution to this is create a super intelligent predator a la "Jurassic Park", which has protected status. You can't shoot it unless it is attacking you or your family. Said intelligent predator will quickly learn to attack and eat the stupid and unarmed.

Pilgrim

Hawkmoon
April 27, 2006, 11:33 AM
I would've been cooperative out in the parking lot. No way would they get to come in, inspect my firearms, and run a serial number on one of my firearms.
Ditto. There was absolutely no reason for them to be in your apartment or to see and handle any of your firearms.

moredes
April 27, 2006, 12:02 PM
No harm done, no foul - why's everyone getting so bent out of shape over this? The cops were doing their job - sue them for excessive use of force? Geez - get a life, honestly.

Dead balls on. So some uninitiated 'reglar' citizen gets bent because "she" saw an open carry and didn't notice the surroundings. AND called the cops. BFD. :rolleyes:

And yes, I've been felony-stopped, downed, and cuffed. During all of it, the first words out of the cop's mouth was, "out of the car, motherfxx !" with his handgun pointing at me. What was it all about? I was driving the same (common for its' day) Toyota Celica in the general neighborhood that they were scouring for a bank robbery suspect.

All they had was a description of the car; bandit had a ski mask. No, it wasn't me. Backup arrived and they searched my car and heard over the radio at the same time that they'd cornered the suspect and found the money bag. I was released with profuse (but not groveling) apologies. No harm no foul. I lost 20 minutes out of my life watching some real pros work my 'scene'. BFD. Why all the outrage from the by-standers?

Gordon Fink
April 27, 2006, 12:11 PM
Technically, my entire neighborhood is private property, including the street and sidewalks, kind of like a gated community without the gate. Hmm private property where I have a right to be, so I should be able to walk around openly with a firearm. Would I do it? No way! No doubt one of my neighbors, perhaps even one of my fellow gun owners, would call the police. Legally, I should prevail, but why invite the hassle?

Nevertheless, calling the cops on someone leaving a firing range seems silly at best.

~G. Fink

rmgill
April 27, 2006, 12:26 PM
I hardly have cops looking for my Armored car any more from people calling and reporting a TANK!@!!@$! driving around atlanta. Perhaps I need a Saladin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvis_Saladin) now.

Last big time was giving the GF's father a ride and retuning back to her apartment complex and having a police car pull in with lights running....He pulled in, popped his lights and had me exit the armored car...."Driver....stop the....ugghhh.....tank and uhhhh....exit the vehicle.." After I pointed out the tag, he kinda lost interest and then got another call in the same complex for a domestic and wandered off with a really befuddled and harried look on his face.

Terrorizing and confusing cops is more fun with an armored car guys!
:neener:

sithanas
April 27, 2006, 12:41 PM
Have a photo of the car?

rmgill
April 27, 2006, 12:48 PM
Yeah, I've posted it here before.


From the dragoncon03 parade (http://www.dragoncon.org/photos03/parade/image_html/parade098.html)

kjeff50cal
April 27, 2006, 01:07 PM
rmgill,
That would be perfect for the traffic in my neck of the woods (Houston, Tx) although it looks too much like an H2;) .

Langenator
April 27, 2006, 02:18 PM
Let's see, my new wife and I were on our way home from our honeymoon, driving north on I-205 just north of Vancouver, WA. Driving in the second lane from the left, since the left lane is about to end. In my side mirror, I see a big, lifted pick up barrelling up in the left lane. Truck gets even with me before he runs out of lane, but rather than slow down and get behind me, he tries to merge INTO me, pushing me over halfway into the next lane.

So, I hit the gas (Audis have nice throttle response at 70 mph) and dodge back in front of him, and flip him the bird out my window once I'm there. (I know, not the wisest move.) Next thing I know, the truck (actually driven by a she) is on my right side, and holding what looks to be a Mini Uzi up to the window.

So I promptly brake enough to get behind her while my wife gets on the cell phone and calls 911, giving the vehicle description and plate #. We pull off at a rest stop and are told a state trooper will meet us there.

Trooper pulls in, cuffs me and puts me in his cruiser, then cuffs my wife. I told him about the pistol in the glove compartment, which he finds, clears, zipties and sets on my trunklid while he calls in my gun SN, my name, and my CCW permit #. Seems the other driver also called in that I was waving a gun around.

Guess my middle finger is bigger than I thought.

Optical Serenity
April 27, 2006, 02:23 PM
In SD the cops would have pulled you over and asked about it not pulled you over at gunpoint. If i was you id call and ask a lawyer about suing for excessive use of force.


:barf: This is one of the most idiotic things I've read all day. You must be one of the most confused people I know, and you probably hope the day comes that you get rear ended so you can sue someone.

The officers did their job just fine, you can't ASSUME that the person you are stopping who is armed that someone just called about is a good guy.

People like you make me embarrassed to be in the gun hobby.

Double Naught Spy
April 27, 2006, 02:50 PM
Steelcore said,
You should have demanded the police charge the caller with filing a false police report.

Well Steelcore, just what was the false report filed? By the original post, Nashmack did exit a business with a gun, more than one, in fact. The only thing in error here is the number of guns. So who would be filing the false report?

I don't know why folks are getting their panties in a wad over this. First we like to complain that the general public doesn't pay attention. Then when someone pays attention in a manner with which we don't agree, we get upset. Had Nashmack just robbed the gun range, the lady would be a hero for being quick to call in suspcious activity and getting a detailed description.

As near as I can tell, the system worked as designed. There was no harm and no foul. Everybody acted as they should have acted and the correct outcome was established. I was sort of surprised Nashmack didn't seem upset about being treated like a "criminal." He wasn't treated like a criminal, but many folks consider the duties of the police toward civilians as duties to criminals and then get all bent out of shape because of being treated like "criminals."

I repeat, I think everyone did as they should have done and so the system worked as designed. Nashmack was not some evil bad guy, but his activity was suspicious to the caller who did not know him. She called. The police responded VERY FAST and the situation was respolved quickly with Nashmack and the police going through the motions to verify things.

So for all you folks who complain about how the cops are lazy and don't respond fast enough and who treat everyone like criminals because they are on power trips...

bdutton
April 27, 2006, 02:57 PM
wow. Thats . I drive by TFL every workday... I won't shoot there because the range is too expensive.

That woman who made the call should be banned from using 911.

ball3006
April 27, 2006, 03:14 PM
like this as I am hearing impared and would not have a clue what the cop was yelling at me........I have an engraved plate on my front door saying "the resident is hearing impared".......just in case they want to kick the door in.....chris3

Hawkmoon
April 27, 2006, 03:16 PM
As near as I can tell, the system worked as designed. There was no harm and no foul. Everybody acted as they should have acted and the correct outcome was established.
Not a big deal, certainly, but it is potentially inaccurate to say there was NO foul. Nashmack did say he was proned out, I believe. I don't know how he was dressed, but suppose he was wearing a nice shirt and nice trousers, and the ground on which he was proned out was dirty and/or muddy.

At the very least, the twit who over-reacted should owe him having his clothing cleaned.

Deanimator
April 27, 2006, 03:38 PM
About ten years ago, the pipes in my apartment sprang a leak. The management came in and found a bunch of guns in my apartment. They freaked out and called the Berea, OH PD. Their reaction was, "Yeah, so?" Of course I used to shoot service rifle matches with one of their snipers...

bruss01
April 27, 2006, 03:58 PM
The officer's response was excessive, IMHO.

There was no report of any illegal activity. The officer witnessed no illegal activity. The officer had no reason to think the man in the car had done anything wrong.

It was not excessive to pull the car over and initiate dialog with the gun owner, based on the report. It was definitely excessive to ORDER someone out of the car, hands raised, and make him get down on the ground. That is insulting, degrading and more than a "courtesy" to the officer. That is an abuse of police authority.

If police are becomming too afraid to have a conversation with a motorist whom they have no reason to think has done anything wrong unless that person is basically in a strait-jacket, then what does that tell us about where our country is headed? Is public sentiment against police abuses really becomming so widespread that even good officers are afraid they're being painted with the bad brush? To the point where they fear every citizen is just waiting for an opportunity to kill a cop? If the cop is that afraid of someone with no record and no evidence of having done anything wrong, then there's a problem that needs to be fixed somewhere.

Did the officer have his weapon drawn? Any time you point a gun at a person, there's a chance it might go off. Either a mechanical malfunction (rare, but has happened) or an "accidental discharge" caused by operator error in a moment of stress. This has happened and even been caught on tape numerous times. To point a gun at a citizen who has exhibited no sign of having done anything wrong is to needlessly and recklessly endanger the life of that citizen. If someone needlessly endangers someone's life, that is a grievance in need of redress.

It may be "routine practice" or "department policy" to handle law abiding citizens in this manner. If so, it is a repugnant practice that needs to change. Making it "policy" doesn't make it right.

BozemanMT
April 27, 2006, 04:01 PM
no harm?
no foul?:fire:
You are calmly walking along minding your own busines and civilians with guns drawn come up, surround you and order you to the ground, face down hands behind your neck and then cuff you.
this is no harm?

Warning to anyone who tries this on me; civilian (and cops are civilians despite their increasing militarization), military, scumbag, whoever.
It's not going to happen.
I'm not going quietly and I will fight back.
I am a free citizen and I will be treated as such.

a no harm no foul stop would have been for the officer to be wary, ask the man to keep his hands in sight and ask him respectfully his questions. Even I would calmly answer his questions.

Buckskinner
April 27, 2006, 04:37 PM
If I saw any ol' body walking with a gun, I'm probably not just gonna smile and wave and assume he's a gun nut like me. He might be a legitimate nut, up to no good, and deserves attention. I'd be extra alert and probably looking to take cover and make distance. I act like this at the range too.

We here at THR are too quick to assume someone with a gun is a good guy, UNLESS the guy with a gun is a cop. Then the cop has to go over and above to prove to us that he's a good guy. You know, kiss our ass, be extra nice, and discuss guns like they're a carpenter discussing their favorite saw or hammer. Because most of the cops I know don't hug and caress their guns like most gun nuts I know, including myself. If the cop acts like his skin is more important than ours, because that's the first thing he thinks about when he wakes up in the morning, before he kisses his wife and kids, and the last think he thinks about at night when trying to decompress from real bad guys, and just other guys who give him a bad time for protecting himself, then I say I have a bit more patience with the cops. Of course there's a boundary that gets crossed sometimes by some guys. Walk a mile in there duty boots...

People like to say "well I live in GA/Tenn./TX, and folks just love guns here." That is probably true in your experience, and that's awesome for you. But mass shootings happen by regular guys (to the people who know them) with regular guns (to us) in regular places. In other words, Anytown USA, in front of strip malls, inside big malls, or god forbid, schools.

I'm saying don't give people a free pass until they act like they deserve it.

ArmedBear
April 27, 2006, 04:38 PM
In my city -- not surrounding towns, it's a city ordinance only -- we are required to have a gun cased to carry it to our cars from a range in a public place -- not the gun club with its own parking lot, but a public lot or street. It needn't be anything beyond a gun sock, just something that covers the gun.

I've always thought that was sort of weird, given that California is a semi-open-carry state, with most laws about carrying guns specifically referring to concealed weapons, not guns in general. Covering the gun in an unlocked soft case is concealing it, at least in the plain English meaning.

But this incident sheds some light on why this law might be in place. Maybe this sort of thing happened a few too many times, and the cops wanted an easy way to prevent it. I don't particularly care for the law; I think it takes the concept of "brandishing" a bit too far. I do, however, see why it might be in place.

I'm glad it ended up with the cops laughing and you're okay. The cops here came within a 5 lb. trigger pull of killing a guy with a water gun on the beach here a few years back. The cops were even more shaken up than the prankster who'd just been squirting his buddies.

chas_martel
April 27, 2006, 05:41 PM
>AndyC

>No harm done, no foul - why's everyone getting so bent out of shape over this? The cops >were doing their job - sue them for excessive use of force? Geez - get a life, honestly.

I'll tell you why. Because things are mixed up, the default is that someone
openly displaying a gun should be assumed to be a good, law abiding citizen.
Why are you so at ease with things being mixed up? Why do you find
it so easy to bend-over? You'd have made a very good slave.

AndyC
April 27, 2006, 05:56 PM
Seems to me you're talking about the ideal, the fantasy, a gunowners' Utopia. Here on planet Earth, things are a little different in practice - I call things as they are, not how I would like them to be. I've found that if I don't acknowledge reality, it automatically finds a way to screw me over even worse *shrug*

"Excessive use of force" - pfffft.

"The nasty cops made me lie down on my stomach, woe is me, my rights have been so repressed!" - bloody nancy-boy *snort*

cbsbyte
April 27, 2006, 06:06 PM
I would take it in stride. Since, you did not get arrested or have your gun confiscated as would happen in a few states. At least in NH you don't have to have your guns locked in a case when in a vehicle. I bet whoever called the police is originaly from Mass. Though, how do you know a girl called the police? It could have been a man.

Manedwolf
April 27, 2006, 06:19 PM
I was exiting an establishment called "The Firing Line" in Manchester NH this evening, and keep in mind this is an indoor range, with a rather large sign, carrying my uncased .22, action open, barrel pointed toward the ground. I placed the rifle in my trunk, got all my gear settled, and pulled out of the parking lot. I got about a quarter mile down the street, and that's when I noticed the blues behind me, so of course like a law abided liscenced driver should, I pulled over.

:eek: :eek: :eek: That's where I go to shoot! Geez...Well, I guess keeping everything in a range bag is a good idea.

Who the heck could have been around there? It's an industrial park area. Someone going by in a car for the airport, some idiot?

And that cop really over-reacted, considering NH has open carry, and, y'know...HUNTING? :rolleyes:

Manedwolf
April 27, 2006, 06:23 PM
New Hampshire...wasn't there a long thread here about a year ago, involving a guy who got roughed up for open carry? I think it was at Barnes & Noble. A woman (who refused to identify herself to the operator) called 911, claiming he made her nervous. Police showed up and completely mishandled the situation.

No, that was because he was carrying small-of-back, had left his coat in the car, and was walking around like a dumb**s with a Glock poking out of the back of his pants, out of his line of sight, for anyone to walk up and take from him while he was focused on browsing and reading. That's not open carry, that's just stupid. In fact, the cop who came came up behind him grabbed onto it as his partner approached from the front, thus showing how easy it would have been for ANYONE to do that.

And Cosine, what're you talking about? NH has ten times more freedom regarding guns than Wisconsin does. NH is overwhelmingly libertarian. Perhaps you mistake us for the government of our neighbors to the south?

chas_martel
April 27, 2006, 06:28 PM
AndyC,

A point I was trying to make is that things are bad because "we" let
them get this way. Your attitude, IMO, is helping the other side win.

I grew up in Texas during the time when I - as a teenager - carried a gun down
the street, and in my car to school, and no one said anything.

This is one reason why I think open carry of pistols should be legal and encouraged.
I would desensitise people to the sight of guns. Right now people are the way
they are because they only associate firearms with bad guns on the TV.

I submit to you that if more of us normal sane people spoke up
then maybe, just maybe, we would not be where we are today. As it is,
those of us with common sense just keep our mouths closed and allow
things to degrade.

Hawkmoon
April 27, 2006, 06:36 PM
If I saw any ol' body walking with a gun, I'm probably not just gonna smile and wave and assume he's a gun nut like me. He might be a legitimate nut, up to no good, and deserves attention. I'd be extra alert and probably looking to take cover and make distance. I act like this at the range too.

We here at THR are too quick to assume someone with a gun is a good guy, UNLESS the guy with a gun is a cop. Then the cop has to go over and above to prove to us that he's a good guy. You know, kiss our ass, be extra nice, and discuss guns like they're a carpenter discussing their favorite saw or hammer. Because most of the cops I know don't hug and caress their guns like most gun nuts I know, including myself. If the cop acts like his skin is more important than ours, because that's the first thing he thinks about when he wakes up in the morning, before he kisses his wife and kids, and the last think he thinks about at night when trying to decompress from real bad guys, and just other guys who give him a bad time for protecting himself, then I say I have a bit more patience with the cops. Of course there's a boundary that gets crossed sometimes by some guys. Walk a mile in there duty boots...

People like to say "well I live in GA/Tenn./TX, and folks just love guns here." That is probably true in your experience, and that's awesome for you. But mass shootings happen by regular guys (to the people who know them) with regular guns (to us) in regular places. In other words, Anytown USA, in front of strip malls, inside big malls, or god forbid, schools.

I'm saying don't give people a free pass until they act like they deserve it.
I am having a difficult time figuring out which side you are on here, which is why I copied and pasted the entire post.

Are you saying the police had a right and a reason to react as they did?

BozemanMT and bruss01 put it in perspective. The courts have ruled that police "may" (not "must") conduct interviews if they have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is going to be committed. Ordering someone out of their vehicle at gunpoint and proning them out is not "conducting an interview."

The point here is that there was NO REPORT OF ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. This took place in New Hampshire, a state in which OPEN CARRY of handguns is legal. Big deal -- a caller saw a man place a rifle in the trunk of his car. All that establishes for the responding officer(s) is that the man (allegedly) has a rifle in the truck of his car. THIS IS NOT ILLEGAL IN MANCHESTER, NH. This is not probable cause for approaching with drawn guns and proning the "suspect" out. What the hell was he "suspected" of? Suspicion of engaging in lawful activity?

Sorry, but I do feel there was a foul here. Nashmack wasn't accidently shot and he was released moderately quickly -- but the police response WAS inappropriate and potentially dangerous, as well as possibly illegal and actionable.

Nashmack
April 27, 2006, 06:36 PM
I got curious this morning, so I casually strolled into the Manchester police station (left my 1911 in a locked case in the vehicle by the way), and asked the dispatcher what the caller's area code was. She wasn't supposed to provide it, but she did say it was a 978 area code:D (for those of you who dont know, that's northeastern Mass). I bear the Manchester PD no ill will over this, as a matter of fact I'm still chuckling about it as I'm reading my own thread. As some other posters from NH have pointed out, TFL is about a quarter mile away from the airport here. In fact, when I got pulled over I was heading in that direction, I had just turned onto the Perimeter road wich goes around the edged of the airport (for those of you in this area, I was right by UPS when I got pulled over) so that may have been a contributing factor in the officer's response. These days you certainly can't be too cautious when approaching an armed person near the airport.

I noticed one person post something about the clothes I was wearing, and the cleaning bill for em. As to my attire, I was wearing BDU trousers and a black work shirt, so no, I'm not too terribly concerned about getting those dirty as those are my work clothes, and IMHO work clothes are meant to get dirty:)

As for the B&N incident, this is the first I've ever heard of it, but yes, if he had a Glock in an SOB holster, in the open, then I can see how that would cause problems. I routinely carry a 5" 1911 in a belt holster, but my shirt tails cover it:D


**edited to add**

When I was ordered out of my vehicle, the officer kept his trigger finger off the trigger, and the muzzle pointed at the ground about 12 feet in front of me. At no time did I feel that I could be struck by a bullet had the weapon gone off.

rbernie
April 27, 2006, 06:48 PM
The concern that I would have is not that the officer responded to investigate but that he pointed a live firearm at the driver as a function of making the stop. Just ask the Culosi (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012602136.html) family what can happen when an officer draws his/her weapon...

Nashmack
April 27, 2006, 06:53 PM
Quote from the Washington Post article on the Culosi incident:

"Although police and firearms authorities were divided yesterday on whether SWAT teams are needed for most search warrants, as is Fairfax's practice, they agreed on another point: Officers carrying guns should not aim directly at anyone or have their fingers on the trigger until they are absolutely ready to fire."

The last sentence there, as I pointed out in my edit to my last post, the officer was in a "ready" stance, IE muzzle down, finger off the trigger.

Cosmoline
April 27, 2006, 06:55 PM
Nope, and I never will either. This is a perfect example of how certain sections of the "live free or die" homeland have become de facto suburbs of BOSTON. I know one local government official in Exeter who left Seattle because she considered it too conservative. I wouldn't be surprised if this person was laying in wait to make these calls to try to shut the range down. Those people from the socialist eastern states CANNOT BE TRUSTED. They are vile animals. Unfortunately it's only a matter of time before they completely take over Vermont and New Hampshire.

Nashmack
April 27, 2006, 07:05 PM
While I dont have anything against people from the People's Demokratik Republic of Massachusetts, I do have to say it would be nice if all the kids from there who come up here would learn to drive the NH way, IE red means stop, gren means go fast, yellow means faster still, Doing a quintuple lane change with no signals is unacceptable, etc etc etc....

I'm just kidding about the driving thing, I think that it's actually a New England thing that makes us drive like that:D

In all seriousness though, Manchester, Derry, Londonderry, Bedford, Merrimack, Nashua, and Hollis all seem to be heading towards becoming bedroom communities for Boston.

cosine
April 27, 2006, 07:08 PM
And Cosine, what're you talking about? NH has ten times more freedom regarding guns than Wisconsin does. NH is overwhelmingly libertarian. Perhaps you mistake us for the government of our neighbors to the south?

*looking up map of the U.S.*

Oops, yeah, that's what I get for making a statement without checking the accuracy of it first. Sorry 'bout that. I was thinking of your southern neighbor. :o

Darn eastern states! They're so small and so close together I could never keep them straight. :p

AndyC
April 27, 2006, 07:12 PM
AndyC,

A point I was trying to make is that things are bad because "we" let
them get this way. Your attitude, IMO, is helping the other side win....
Fair comment, chas, and point taken. My point, however, is that I think that actually suing in those circumstances is a touch too...loony-left for me.

Nashmack
April 27, 2006, 07:16 PM
Ugh I can t believe My beautiful tree stump shaped state was lumped in with the Gay state!:barf: (the gay state is a monniker myself and my coworkers gave the Commonwealth after they allowed bgay marriage) I feel embarrassed that we were actually grouped with a state with that much gun control and almost non existant crime control:eek:

I lived there for 18 years, I think that gives me liscence to make fun of it, espescially Boston since they're saddled with "Mumbles" Menino and whatnot:neener:

Chipperman
April 27, 2006, 07:21 PM
Would have been interesting if she had called on Monday night. I was leaving the Firing Line with several weapons, including machine guns.

... and I live in the 978 area code. :D

Nashmack
April 27, 2006, 07:23 PM
Chipperman what calibers?:eek: I really wish TFL would come down in price on their .223, and keep it in stock:rolleyes: I'd also like to see em start to get frangible 7.62x54R, and .30-06:uhoh:

jerkface11
April 27, 2006, 07:24 PM
It's good to know that some people still think it's OK for a cop to draw his pistol on a citizen when no crime has been reported or suspected. Without cops like that we might think we lived in a free country or something.

velojym
April 27, 2006, 07:28 PM
Sorry, for the PD worshippers here, but I'd rather not trust my life to a potentially trigger happy cop, though I know there are some good ones.
I've met too many of the other kind. Recently, a teenaged kid on a date with his girlfriend near where I live ran across a parking lot to get her purse.
I don't know the story exactly, but seconds later, he was on the wet asphalt with a knee in his back.
It looked like he was resisting, and the officer began to thump him, yelling for him to stop, and the kid kept jerking around.
The guy's girlfriend was crying and screaming at the officer that the kid was having a seizure. The cops held her off and didn't bother to take her seriously, continuing to 'subdue' the kid with a purse in his fist, on the wet pavement, in nice clothes.
Evidently they finally wedged him in the back of the police car, and the kid's girlfriend was about to fall over, she was crying so hard. One of the officers threatened her with arrest if she didn't back off.
"good guys", indeed. They should be held responsible for damages, and for pain and suffering.

As for the origin of this thread (and everything else), people should be held accountable for their actions. This would apply to the in'duh'vidual who made the call without bothering to educate herself about the local laws, to the dispatcher for however the call was reported over the radio, and to the officers who could have simply 'asked'.
I had an encounter with some officers in NW AR, when a woman reported me as a burglar, and that I was trying to break into her house. I was doing nothing of the sort... I was observing one of our crews (I'm in Safety for a fairly large company) and was parked on the street near her house. She confronted me, I told her what I was doing and even gave her my last business card, and she left in a huff. After this, she called the cops with her burglary report.
I was pulled over as I drove through town by three cruisers, and told to keep my hands visible. As the officers were, fortunately, what I'd call 'the good sort', they called our local office to confirm my identity and the fact that I was on legitimate business. After about an hour (a very expensive hour, for us) I was released with an apology.
In this case, I believe the woman should be charged, and charged hard.

Guns_and_Labs
April 27, 2006, 07:29 PM
I was busy one night working at my reloading bench in the garage, downstairs. I took a bunch of reject brass and out of spec bullets out to the nearby dumpster and threw it all in. A neighbor passed me, on her way to tossing her garbage.

About 10 minutes later, the team from the local PD came up to the garage door, guns drawn, ready for entry, responding to a 911 call from a neighbor that "some gun nut is holed up in a garage, and has been wandering around with guns and bullets and explosives and such." Yep, the neighbor had seen the brass, freaked and called it in. A patrol car had come by, looked in, and VERIFIED THAT THE REPORT OF AMMO AND EXPLOSIVES SEEMED TRUE. Backup requested, etc.

Well, after a few tense moments, we all calmed down. In fact, one of them ended up taking the empty brass (with my permission). The patrol officer who "verified" the report was given a blistering lecture (in my presence).

oneshooter
April 27, 2006, 07:41 PM
While helping a friend in Austin move some military stuff to a display I was stopped and the vehicle I was driving searched. Seems that somebody reconized the covered over quad 50's on the back of the M16 Halftrack!!! :what: Three cop cars, SWAT, a helocopter, and 2 reporters!! The cops were very nice, as I probably had more firepower available than the antire SWAT team and a 16 ton vehicle to carry it in. :evil: The 50s were gas guns for the show, bur Robert does have the real ones available. Got a real good escort to the show, cops were real interested in the equipment and the SWAT guys were jelouse!:neener:

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

And yes the vehicle had rubber treads and was legal, and liscenced, to operate on Texas roads.:D

Cosmoline
April 27, 2006, 08:14 PM
bunch of reject brass and out of spec bullets out to the nearby dumpster and threw it all in

And you call yourself a handloader! I think I'd call the cops you you too :D

Chipperman
April 27, 2006, 08:53 PM
"Chipperman what calibers?"

Monday I had 9mm and .45.

Jim keeps talking about upgrading so we can shoot rifle calibers, but that's not gonna happen any time soon.

mordechaianiliewicz
April 27, 2006, 08:54 PM
no but at the range i shoot at (niagara gun range) people walk to their vehicles with un cased weapons all the time. i have never heard of anyone being stoped after leaving his range.
the thing you have to remember is people fear what they do not understand. and people have an irrational fear of firearms.
__________________

Mike put it right. Let's face it, if you have an irrational fear of firearms, and know nothing about them, you might do something like that. I'd want a chance to talk to the woman who called this in (like that will ever happen). I saw that this person is from liberal Boston area.

In the big cities on the coasts, fear and hatred of guns is so rampid, things like this, and incidents like the reloader who's neighbor "narced" probably will become more regular, as in states like New Hapshire, Vermont, Virginia, Penssylvannia, Nevada, and Arizona where blissninnys decided to live next to Americans.

I wish we could "open a dialogue with them." i.e. Tell them to shut the f**k up unless they see a shooting. Cower in fear of the guns, swear about them under your breath, but unless there is a shooting, keep your mouth shut, don't waste the cop's time, and quit being cowards.

Double Naught Spy
April 27, 2006, 08:57 PM
Sgt Stevo said, here in the silicon valley, they would have rolled SWAT,tased me, beat me, then sued me, for the PTSD they got, for doing it.

So why would you live there? I cannot imagine knowingly living some place where I feel my rights are so worthless that such treatment would be expected. You can't be making enough money to voluntarily live in a place like that, so are you there by some sort of court mandate and/or wearing a tracking device imposed by the courts, are you?

Manedwolf
April 27, 2006, 09:22 PM
Chipperman what calibers? I really wish TFL would come down in price on their .223, and keep it in stock I'd also like to see em start to get frangible 7.62x54R, and .30-06

You can go north one more exit on 101 and get it a lot cheaper at Wally World, can't you? :confused:

Werewolf
April 27, 2006, 09:46 PM
I think this pic says it all...

insidious_calm
April 27, 2006, 10:52 PM
It seems to me that the relevant questions are as follows:

1) Did the anonymous caller simply report "a man with a gun", or was a specific crime alleged?

2) Was the dispatcher or shift supervisor able to discern a specific crime had been committed based upon the imformation provided by the anonymous caller?

3) Did the officer PERSONALLY observe or know from first hand knowledge reasonable articulable facts that a crime had been, is being, or is about to be committed?


Unless the answer to one of these questions is yes, the responding officer(s) did not even have the legal authority to initiate the stop. His conduct after that is a seperate issue. Personally I feel the officer over reacted. Being cautious is one thing. Approaching the vehicle with your hand on your weapon is one thing. The stated conduct goes well beyond "officer safety" imho. In fact it would amount to a crime here if the premise for the stop was unlawful as qualified immunity does not apply if the officer could have been reasonably expected to know that the stop was unlawful.

It seems to me that without further knowledge the appropriate course of action is to get a copy of the 911 call and transcript, via discovery if necessary, and determine exactly what the dispatcher was told. That way the detainee could determine whether in fact the stop itself was even lawful. Personally I'd demand at least an apology for the officers conduct during the stop. If the stop was in fact unlawful, well, in that event the detainee should seek the appropriate legal remedies and the officer(s) should be punished.

I.C.


P.S. This is NOT cop bashing. Personally I'm a little sick of the "non-leo" bashing I've seen lately. ALL types of bashing need to stop.

gezzer
April 27, 2006, 11:12 PM
What I can't understad is why she should even see him leaving the firing line. Any one who has been there knows at knight the only way would be if she was parked getting *!@#$. It is not in a very public area what is called an industrial area with the line about the only open buss in the area.

Most of us in Free NH know the manchester cops as can you say wanabees.

By the way she could see me leaving there with my machine guns as thats my dealer for NFA. And my plate is SUBGUNS

Nashmack
April 27, 2006, 11:39 PM
Manedwolf I was referring to the loaded down frangible ammo that you need in order to shoot rifle calibers at TFL. Gezzer, I'm fairly certain it was one of the people attending the softball practice across the street at the diamond.

I am fairly certain this came in as a "MWG" call.

LAR-15
April 27, 2006, 11:50 PM
The minute I read the first post, I knew the caller was from Mass.

:rolleyes:

insidious_calm
April 28, 2006, 12:08 AM
Nashmack,

It's your decision. If indeed it came in as "a man with a gun" then the entire premise of the stop was unlawful. Personally I'd sue. It's not really about harming the officer(s) or his carreer, but he needs to be held accountable for his actions and a clear message needs to be sent to his peers about right and wrong. The city/county needs to be accountable too if they failed to train the officer so that he didn't know what he was doing was wrong or unlawful. It doesn't strike me as a mis-understanding, but I wasn't there, and the officer involved is not going to change his attitude unless you give him a reason to. You were treated like some subrate second class citizen, a felon, because of some officers irrational fear of the citizenry and/or his lack of proper training and respect. The lack of respect displayed in assuming your guilt before knowing anything about the situation would have been enough for me. If he didn't have the common decency of respect then he doesn't deserve any in return.

The whole thing could have been handled by approaching the car while shielding his body with the car. He could have asked if you were armed and asked you to exit the vehicle and disarmed you in a respectful manner. It simply was not handled in a professional or appropriate way imho. Others on here will tell you that as long as john law goes home at night ANYTHING goes. Only you can decide what your personal limit for disrespect is. Best of luck in whatever path you choose.

I.C.

Nashmack
April 28, 2006, 12:27 AM
This morning I was pulled over 3 times, once in Merrimack on my way to work, and twice while working (my job occasionally entails driving around Manchester early in the morning, checking certain addresses to make sure delivery instructions are followed, that indeed the newspaper is getting to the address, redelivering Boston Globes as needed, etc). The reasons for these stops were because of a taillight that was out, and I was quite surprised all three times I was stopped.

First stop, route 3 north, approximately an eighth mile south of Maple Ridge condominiums and 7-11:

I saw the cruiser pass me coming from the opposite direction (heading south), he made a wide turn and came up behind me rather quickly. I proceeded to pull to the shoulder, even though he didn't have his blues on yet. Officer flicked on the blues after about 5 seconds. Officer walked up to the window, and asked for liscence/reg, I informed him that I had a pistol on my hip and had to reach past it to reach my liscence/pistol permit, and offered to step out of my vehicle. Officer said stay put, go ahead and grab your liscence, reg, and permit. I complied, handed said documents to the officer, and watched him turn his back to me and walk back to his cruiser. Waited 5 minutes, officer comes back, hands me my documents and a defective eqipment tag (it just says get it fixed ASAP), and wished me a nice morning, and told me I'd probably be more comfortable driving if I took the pistol and mag pouch off my belt and kept them between my seats.

Second and third times, in Manchester, first on Union St, second time on North River Rd.: Checking addresses for proper delivery, cruiser rolls up, window rolls down, spotlight shines first on me, then the numbers on the side of the house. Officer says "Hey Mr. R******, I see you're checking on your carriers, quiet night?"

For the most part I dont have any problems with the LEOs around here:)

insidious_calm
April 28, 2006, 12:34 AM
Your last post is the perfect example of how your first encounter should have gone. There was simply no reason or excuse for being made to prone out on the asphalt while being treated in a manner not suitable for a king's subject, let alone an american citizen. It is also proof that there are some officers in the area who get it and further suggests corrective action for those who don't.


I.C.

Duke Lacross
April 28, 2006, 12:38 AM
seems like I always have some hysterical female calling on me.
WHAT GIVES

Templar223
April 28, 2006, 01:06 AM
I'd be ticked if I got on the receiving end of a felony stop for no good reason.

I'd probably ask for a written letter of apology from the department.

And if the pavement weren't clean and dry, I'd probably consider a civil suit.

John

SomeKid
April 28, 2006, 01:20 AM
Insiduius,

and asked you to exit the vehicle and disarmed you in a respectful manner.

There is no possibly way to be disarmed respectfully. Whenever it is done it is an insult to a mans freedoms, and a show of power. It should only be done to criminals, never to citizens.

Nash, stop telling cops you are armed unless they ask. It is none of their business.

Nashmack
April 28, 2006, 01:35 AM
SomeKid, I always inform law enforcement because if I dont, they get uneasy. Uneasy means they draw because when it all boils down, if it comes down to them or me walking away, they wanna be the ones still vertical. Understandable?

panzermk2
April 28, 2006, 02:09 AM
Nashmack
I am from the midwest but I travel to NH for my job so you will get this right away.
She must have been a transplanted M*******

ARTiger
April 28, 2006, 02:10 AM
I have a hunting/fishing cabin in a remote area with a lot of other similar cabins. We have plenty of rattlesnakes, coyotes, hogs, bear and an occasional cat around (not to mention some really big raccoons with attitudes). A lot of us myself included think nothing of strapping on a pistol, open carry in a belt holster. We go about our day like this - go into town (pop 315) eat at the diner, go to the grocery store, etc. kinda what you would think of as "old west". I usually pack a GP100 or my S&W 629 - more often than not in warm weather loaded with shotshells for the damned timber rattlers.

Well, there's a main highway about 15 miles away that gets a lot of tourist traffic - out of stater's going to lakes, etc. There's a large convenience store there with a good diner attached we go to sometimes. It's real common that the state police get a frantic cellphone call from some busybody tourist reporting all us armed desperados at the KwikStop. Most of the troopers in the area hang out there as well and they all get a good laugh about these calls.

Seems some folks work themselves up into a tissy fit just at the sight of a man with a gun on his hip sitting down to a plate of steak and eggs or filling up his gas tank.

Hawkmoon
April 28, 2006, 02:40 AM
Nash, stop telling cops you are armed unless they ask. It is none of their business.
It happens that you are correct that in NH he is not required to notify an LEO that he is carrying, but did you check the NH statutes before posting? Are you aware that a great many states DO require you to notify an LEO that you are carrying when you encounter them in any "official" capacity?

SomeKid
April 28, 2006, 02:51 AM
Hawk, 'great many' is rather subjective. Numerically, only a few require it. NC, TX, UT, OH, LA, SC, MI, and I think one or two others. That is out of 49 states that have some form of legal carry method. Lets say I forgot 3. That would mean 10 states had mandated notification laws. Out of 49 states with some kind of carry laws. While I would like to see no states with such laws, from a numbers outlook, only a few have the onerous requirement.

NH is not on the list of states mandating you notify government when you carry. Check packing for lots of little info.

What irks me about the whole notification thing, is the states that require it. CA? No. NJ? No. NY? No. Aside from MI, all of those are Republican states. Some, such as Texas and Utah, are considered conservative. Yet, they still have this absurd requirement.

pete f
April 28, 2006, 04:55 AM
The caller had to be an escapee from massachusetts.

My father lives half the year in florida. As it is his official state of residence he has a Ruger Mk2 with a can for pest removal. He had just potted a rather large and messy Possum from the car port and was getting ready to toss it into the dumpster at the end of his driveway. He looked up and here was a Squad car pulling up, Dad hefted the possum and flipped it into the can. He still had the Mk2 in his hand. The cop got out, walked up and told my dad that was one big possum, to which my dad responded, yeah took three minimags to get it to stop. Cop laughs and asks to see the pistol. He comments that is very nice, just about that time some lady comes running from behind another unit yelling "thats him, officer!! thats him" in a heavy new joisy accent. My Dad looks to the officer and the officer just smiles and says "yup ma'am" and hands the pistol back to my dad. She just stops and screams "WHAT ARE YOU DOING!!" and the Officer says "giving back his property." She screams again "BUT ITS A GUN!!" and the cops said, "yeah and its a nice one, now just relax and go back home" My father asked the cop if wanted to try the pistol and the cop said I would like that and they walked back to the edge of the property and the officer put a couple of rounds into a stunp back there. About this time the officers radio beeped again and after a minute of listening, he rolls his eyes and says "she just called my boss." And he walked off toward the house she was in.


My father got a call later that day from the officer saying that the lady was from New Jersey and could not get it thru her head that it was LEGAL for my dad to do what he had done, and that owning a pistol did not make him a criminal. The officer said that after she had called the Mayors office to complain that even the chief of police would not listen to her, a city hall worker had told her to pack up and leave, that they lived in AMERICA and if she did not like it, they had planes leaving everyday.

heypete
April 28, 2006, 04:56 AM
I got pulled over on the highway in Arizona by the Highway Patrol about 5 minutes after crossing the CA-AZ border. Immediately after crossing the border, I took the G19 out of the locked bag in the back, slapped a mag into it, chambered a round, then holstered it in the Fobus holster on my left hip. (I don't have a CCW in AZ, so I have to open carry...no permit necessary. Ah, freedom.)

Anyway, I got pulled over for something trivial like a plastic cover over my license plates or some such.

DPS officer's on the passenger side, and I have my window rolled down to communicate with him. He asks for my license and registration. Before reaching for it, I informed him that I was openly carrying a handgun on my left hip so he wouldn't be alarmed if he were to see it.

He asked what I was carrying...I told him a "Glock 19". He shruged, said the department issued them Sigs, which he really liked, said something about "just make sure it stays in the holster, ok?", and then said it was ok if I got out the license and registration.

In California, I would have likely been booked with a dozen different charges after being tased and roughed up a few times.

Manedwolf
April 28, 2006, 09:54 AM
Officer walked up to the window, and asked for liscence/reg, I informed him that I had a pistol on my hip and had to reach past it to reach my liscence/pistol permit, and offered to step out of my vehicle. Officer said stay put, go ahead and grab your liscence, reg, and permit.

There's no requirement for you to inform you're carrying in NH. That's just adding time to your stop. Why tell them?

I was stopped for a registration sticker that fell off, they didn't ask. I don't think they care, really.

Werewolf
April 28, 2006, 10:07 AM
Numerically, only a few require it. NC, TX, UT, OH, LA, SC, MI, and I think one or two others.Add OK to that list. You must inform a LEO who interacts with you in an official capacity that you are carrying. If you don't and he finds out not only will you lose your permit but bubba in the county lockup might just become your new best friend for a while.

Nashmack
April 28, 2006, 11:07 AM
Once again, the reason for informing the officer was so that he wouldn't all of a sudden see my sidearm, think I'm going for it, with the end result of me bleeding out rather quickly from a center of mass hit, or being dropped immediately from a central nervous hit. Normally if I have my pistol on the floor (happens when I have a new driver riding with me on their first day, never can tell who is and who isnt a transplanted M******* these days), I dont inform the LEO that I have a pistol in the vehicle. Now Londonderry on the other hand...once they identify that I'm in the vehicle they ask me if I'm carrying, and of course I answer truthfully.

Hawkmoon
April 28, 2006, 11:22 AM
I notice that SomeKid didn't answer my question (whether he had checked the NH law before responding, or lucked into a correct answer), but to settle the issue I just spent some quality time over on Packing.org. Based on the listings at www.packing.org, the following states require that you notify when carrying:

AL
AK *
LA
MI
NC
OH **
OK
SC
TX ***
UT

In addition, there were perhaps a half dozen states listed as "unknown."

The footnotes:

* There's a note for AK saying that the "must notify" statute was ruled unconstitutionally vague. However, it does not say the law was repealed, so it is still on the books and it probably isn't wise to assume that all LEOs know it has been ruled unconstitutionally vague

** The section discussing this for OH specifically states that it applies to passengers as well as drivers

*** The TX law says you must notify when asked by an LEO for ID, and the example cited is a traffic stop when asked for your driver's license.

In summary, we have ten states with a duty to notify and another six or so that are unknown. Since I don't expect to be able to keep track of which states require it and which don't, I'll take the path of prudent courtesy and notify in all states where I'm legal to carry. Y'all can do as you wish.

K-Romulus
April 28, 2006, 11:34 AM
The officer said that after she had called the Mayors office to complain that even the chief of police would not listen to her, a city hall worker had told her to pack up and leave, that they lived in AMERICA and if she did not like it, they had planes leaving everyday.
Whenever I start to get depressed over Ted Kennedy/The UN/Rebecca Peters/Mikey Bloomberg, etc., I read a story like this and feel much better about our country's future . . :o

John-Melb
April 28, 2006, 12:50 PM
This is part of one of my posts from elsewhere on THR but it's probably relevant here..............................

A number of years ago a mate and I were going rabbit shooting on another mates farm, we had parked the car on the side of the road, opened the boot I had passed tom his gun which hed had placed on the other side of the fence and I was standing at the rear of the car putting my double together. A police car came over the rise, put on it's lights and bells and pulled in behind us. I said to tom, I think is a licence check. As the two officers got out of their car they were clearly facing two real nasty looking dudes, Tom was leaning against the fence rolling a cigarette, with his gun and cartridge belt laying on the other side of the fence. I was standing at the rear of my car, gun broken, clearly unloaded and tucked in the crook of my arm whilst my hands were busily packing my pipe. The Senior Constable got out of the car and walked towards smiling and asking something like "what are you two up too?". His much younger offsider took up a somewhat defensive position behing his car door with his hand on the butt of his revolver. The young constable appeared to get quite upset when tom and I started laughing at him. I get the feeling the older Senior Connie latter gave his young off-sider a talking too.

Nashmack
April 28, 2006, 01:25 PM
John-Melb, I take it you're from Austrailia?

ArmedBear
April 28, 2006, 02:50 PM
Being from California, I couldn't resist strapping on a SAA in a cowboy holster when I took my dog out to pee in AZ. Never know what you might find in a hotel parking lot in broad daylight.:D

SomeKid
April 28, 2006, 02:53 PM
pete, that was a pretty funny story. Sounds like you had some decent fellas as cops.

Were, thanks. I knew I had missed one or two.

Hawk, to answer your question directly: Yes, I have checked NH laws on notification before.

I note, in your list you have AL-Alabama. AL is not a notify state. Assuming you me and Were didn't miss any, we have 9 states that mandate you notify cops.

Easy way to keep track of which states require it. Know your own, and know the next 2 or 3 most likely states you will enter. If you ever travel, check beforehand. Keeps things nice and easy.

For example, I live near the TN/GA/AL borders. I know my HCP is good in both states, and that neither mandates I inform cops. I also keep an idea of their carry laws. TN has no law against carry at a public event. GA and AL do. TN and GA prohibit restaurant carry. AL does not. GA and TN are states where you can OC if you can conceal. AL is less than crystal clear. GA has a silly law mandating you carry your pistol at your waist. Just the way I keep things organized.

Semper Vigilo
April 28, 2006, 03:48 PM
When I got my DCM M-1 a few years back the postmaster made me unbox it to "check it for damage". This particular post office borders a high-crime area. Needless to say, after I got it back in the box, the indigeneous personnel gave me a wide berth back to my car.

To this day I wonder how long it took the PM to wipe the grin off of his face.

ArmedBear
April 28, 2006, 03:50 PM
This particular post office borders a high-crime area.

Wait...

Do you mean that there are shootings OUTSIDE the confines of the PO, or INSIDE them?

akodo
April 28, 2006, 09:04 PM
I've got mixed feelings on this.

First off, it is not a HUGE deal (read, no need to sue, or threaten to sue) However, that doesn't mean you cannot call a superior and complain, so that things get better and not worse.

If the caller reported a 'man with gun' as said, the 911 operator should have questioned the caller a little more. Hell, maybe it was a 'man with nailgun working on his deck' or 'man with caukgun working on his boat'. Lets take the caller as ignorant and says 'I don't know, I just see him with a gun, putting it in a car, and driving away, maybe he is going to rob a bank or just killed someone!'. At this piont it is reasonable to dispatch an officer, but it is unreasonable for the officer to do more than stop the vehicle and approach with care.

I do think it is reasonable to ask more about what information the caller gave that caused the officer to call for belly down in the middle of the road. 911 has received a call about suspicous activity, not illegal activity, and the officer overreacted. The other option is the caller lied about what she saw, that's the only way to justify the hard stop and handling of the poster. In that case, yes, I would say calling and lying to the 911 operator to get someone in trouble is wrong and should be looked into by the police.

The Real Hawkeye
April 28, 2006, 09:59 PM
"We just had a call for a man fitting your description, driving a car with your plate numbers, exiting a building with a gun."And what crime, exactly, is this? Is it a crime to exit buildings with guns? My golly, I exit my home with guns every single day.

The Real Hawkeye
April 28, 2006, 10:08 PM
Im not prepared to blame the cops on this one. They have to work with the information they are given, and in this case I bet they didnt get much. You have to accept that they will proceed with as much caution as possible based on what they know, we would all proceed the same.:scrutiny: Why am I not surprised? Once again: Please specify the criminal statute which is broken when someone exits a building with a firearm. What, exactly, is the crime we are talking about that they were investigating? You can no more justifiably put someone on the ground at gun point for exiting a building with a firearm than you can put someone on the ground at gun point for exiting a building with a chain saw. If you do, you have committed a crime against the person so treated, and need to spend time in jail to think about your conduct. Oh, but I forgot, cops are above the law these days. If I were to put someone on the ground at gun point, and then explained to the judge that I personally saw him exiting a building with a firearm (let alone that someone told me they saw it), I guarantee that I would be spending some time in the slammer.

mustanger98
April 28, 2006, 10:12 PM
There is no possibly way to be disarmed respectfully. Whenever it is done it is an insult to a mans freedoms, and a show of power. It should only be done to criminals, never to citizens.

I'm reminded of one of Col. Cooper's collumns... he was talking about how so many cops now think they have to cuff everybody. He said some of the best and most effective law enforcement outfits in history almost never did that. He gave for instances of how no Roman citizen was ever shackled, plus that the Mexican Rurales under their El Presidente Diaz thought it rude to remove a suspect's sidearm.

So you take this insulting manner of treating the private citizen (as opposed to "civilian") along with "I'm the only one in this room professional enough..." and it's no wonder cops get so much dislike. But, luckily we do still have good cops as have been illustrated in other posts in this same thread. Hey, some of 'em live in my area too.

The Real Hawkeye
April 28, 2006, 10:20 PM
I'm reminded of one of Col. Cooper's collumns... Yeah, that one stuck with me too. He also said in that column that, for a man, being shot is preferable to being handcuffed. He's right. The practice should only be used on men who are akin to mad dogs. Should not be routine in a civilized society.

mustanger98
April 28, 2006, 10:28 PM
GA has a silly law mandating you carry your pistol at your waist. Just the way I keep things organized.

I've read the GA laws several times and my understanding is that it don't have to be at your waist. It just has to be in a holster. It can be in a holster on your belt, in a shoulder holster, in a pocket holster (an aquaintance of mine does that), in a holster in a purse or briefcase... it may or may not be covered by your shirt, jacket, etc. I'll have to look it up again to post a link.

Now, thinking about it, they may have changed a thing or two since the last time I looked it up. I'll have to check.

insidious_calm
April 29, 2006, 01:13 AM
Akodo,

I imagine if you had been the one tasting pavement you would consider it a big deal. The fact of the matter is that the officer had a gun pointed at an innocent man. With all the ND's in the news lately surely you can understand why that is relevant. The officer had no justification to stop his vehicle in the first place. He certainly had no justification to hold him at gunpoint. That in and of itself under the given circumstances is cause to call up a grand jury and let them examine the facts. Around here that takes 5000 signatures if the DA doesn't have the required fortitude. Problem solved, justice served.


Im not prepared to blame the cops on this one. They have to work with the information they are given, and in this case I bet they didnt get much. You have to accept that they will proceed with as much caution as possible based on what they know, we would all proceed the same.

That's just it see. They do have to work with what they are given, and the law is crystal clear in this regard. If the officer doesn't personally see it happen, and the anonymous caller can't articulate an actual crime or specific intent to commit a crime, then the officer has no authority to stop the vehicle, period. Honestly I don't see what is so difficult to understand about it. The officer clearly acted outside his legal authority and he should have known he was if he didn't. The correct course of action is to sue, seek indictment, or whatever other legal remedy is available to the victim in this case.

Personally, I think the officer, at the minimum, should get some unpaid time at home to think about how cavalierly he puts people innocent citizens in mortal danger with his gun. How about we look at this one incident without the us vs. them attitudes and apply the same set of standards to everyone in it.


I.C.

rchernandez
April 29, 2006, 02:11 AM
The Firing Line in Manchester, NH...is that the one near the airport? Owner is Mcloud? Just curious.

shark40sw
April 29, 2006, 02:30 AM
Is it just me, or did anyone else how often the term "sue em" has come up over the course of this discussion? At what point in North American society has that replaced the idea of talking out and finding some sort of middle acceptable ground between two ideas or points of view.
c yeager, as someone who was directly involved in the situation you still had the best and most mature/intelligent out look on it. Sometimes people, thru no fault of their own, get caught up in these situations and with a little brain juice manage to get over it. They realize that, although unpleasant, the cop was only looking at the situation with a limited amount of information and has to act in a way that minimizes the threat to himself and anyone else around them. This sometimes means thinking in a "worst case senario" frame of mind. Ones that don't, especially on "man with a gun call", at some point get a really neat funeral on the states dime.

Doc Lukens
April 29, 2006, 02:36 AM
I imagine if you had been the one tasting pavement you would consider it a big deal.

Being at the end of a felony stop is scary as hell. And I've only been there as a training subject when I was employed at a PD. This was before red resin guns, so the officers unloaded their real guns and we all inspected each others' weapon before the training. One rookie officer came late, and I didn't get to inspect his (I didn't even know he was there). I and the officers whose guns I inspected all said "bang" when I pulled my gun on them (as per our instructions). The rookie whose gun I didn't inspect pulled his trigger. Fortunately, it went "click." He got a royal chewing out by the TO. The TO later told me I turned white as a ghost when I heard the click. And I just stood there staring at the rookie for a few seconds with "you DUMB@$$" written all over my face. At least I know how to behave if I ever get a real FS. The original poster of this thread did the right thing. You can argue your rights later.

Doc Lukens
April 29, 2006, 02:54 AM
Once again, the reason for informing the officer was so that he wouldn't all of a sudden see my sidearm, think I'm going for it, with the end result of me bleeding out rather quickly from a center of mass hit, or being dropped immediately from a central nervous hit.

The college where I teach offers the CCW course. I once asked the part time instructor who teaches the course (a police officer from UofA PD) if informing an officer when stopped was required in AZ. He said no, but it is a good idea (for the reason Nashmack points out). I don't have a CCW, but if I ever got one, I'd notify, too.

Spreadfire Arms
April 29, 2006, 03:24 AM
insidious_calm wrote:
If the officer doesn't personally see it happen, and the anonymous caller can't articulate an actual crime or specific intent to commit a crime, then the officer has no authority to stop the vehicle, period.

im not sure where you got this information, but police DO have the right to detain someone for a reasonable amount of time if they have reasonable suspicion to believe a crime has been committed. there is no legal requirement for an officer to witness something in order for a legal detention.

further, there is no legal obligation for a caller (citizen) to articulate that a crime has actually occurred. people are detained every day by police for looking suspicious. an officer can lawfully detain someone for just that, so long as there is a legitimate call by a citizen reporting that person or behavior. citizens are not expected to be legal experts when they report a possible crime.

some people had jumped on the "excessive force" and "lawsuit" bandwagon.
im not going to say this was a case of excessive force as someone had mentioned. the officers acted upon the information they had, which was, a man with a gun. legal or not, they didn't know. they didn't know if the man was a law abiding citizen who had just left a gun range, or a crook who had just committed a violent crime.

if im going to lay blame on anybody it would be the citizen who was too stupid to realize the guy had just left a firing range and called the cops. how else does the gun owner bring his gun back home after shooting it?

and yes i have a stupid citizen story too. this happened in 2003 or 2004 in Austin, TX. a Secret Service agent that i knew went into Home Depot and showed the employee there his federal credentials and his badge, which was on his belt next to his firearm.

idiot employee told her manager there was a man with a gun in the store. never mind federal agent, or gun and BADGE, or whatever.

they called Austin PD who proned him out at gunpoint in the store. :confused:

im thinking....***....what kind of ******* employee would do that? imagine if shots were fired. APD kills Secret Service agent. wonderful.

that guy was part of the advance detail for the Vice Presidential security detail. imagine the headlines..... :banghead:

SomeKid
April 29, 2006, 03:28 AM
Mustanger,

While I wouldn't mind being wrong, it still is silly. I occaisionally carry in a shirt pocket, so the whole holster thing still irks me.

As for those who think sueing is an overreaction, the OP could be dead right now. All the cop should have done,w as stopped him, asked if he had a carry permit (or made sure the laws were being followed for car carry of an unpermitted person, yes I hate the whole idea of getting apermit, but thats another thread). Once he saw he did have everything done legally, he says 'Good day' and walks away. The cops behavior as it was, is unacceptable in a free society.

Spreadfire Arms
April 29, 2006, 03:42 AM
somekid wrote:

As for those who think sueing is an overreaction, the OP could be dead right now. All the cop should have done, was stopped him, asked if he had a carry permit (or made sure the laws were being followed for car carry of an unpermitted person, yes I hate the whole idea of getting apermit, but thats another thread). Once he saw he did have everything done legally, he says 'Good day' and walks away. The cops behavior as it was, is unacceptable in a free society.

sure, so could the officer though [being dead]. you're not seeing it both ways. there are many ways that this traffic stop could have gone, and granted the officer could have "low-keyed" the stop, that doesn't mean he is wrong and overreacted.

a carry permit doesn't negate the fact that a person is about to, or has, committed a crime while armed.

i wouldn't go so far as to call the officer's behavior unacceptable. he was acting on the information he had, however limited.

the bottom line, at least to me, is that the officer has the right to go home safely at the end of the night.

this doesn't mean the cops should go pointing their guns at everybody they see. however, i don't think he was necessarily wrong by doing what he did.

i will agree that i may have done things a little differently. i probably would have had the guy exit his car and come over to me, and then do a visual scan or terry pat-down to make sure he wasn't armed, then take it from there. i probably wouldn't have taken someone down at gunpoint, especially for a long gun in Texas. that is 100% legal in Texas (carrying a loaded or unloaded long gun in your car) in and of itself. committing a crime with one isn't legal. however, im not sure the political climate of the state in question, but with having to have some sort of "permit" i assume they aren't exactly gun friendly.

Jeff White
April 29, 2006, 04:09 AM
insidious calm said;
The officer had no justification to stop his vehicle in the first place.

Could you cite the state or USSC case that outlawed investigative stops? The facts as reported by Nashmack in post #1 are:
"We just had a call for a man fitting your description, driving a car with your plate numbers, exiting a building with a gun".

The officers had a description of Nashmack, his car, to include the license plate number and a statement from a witness that he exited a building with a gun in hand. I'm pretty sure that would be sufficient grounds to make an investigative stop anywhere in the country. Around here a call like that would be dispatched with the last line saying Make your own case. Which means that the witness didn't observe a crime in progress and it is up to the officer to decide if there really was a crime committed. A complaint like the hopolophobic woman made is investigated because there is no way to know the full story. For all the dispatcher knew Nashmack could have just murdered several people and was making his getaway.

He certainly had no justification to hold him at gunpoint.

You don't know that. Nowhere in this story does it say what the complainant said or what the dispatcher put out over the radio. If the call was dispatched as simply a man walked out of a building and put a rifle in the car, then no, there was probably no justification for doing a felony stop. But until you know how the call was dispatched you can't judge the officer's actions.

That's just it see. They do have to work with what they are given, and the law is crystal clear in this regard. If the officer doesn't personally see it happen, and the anonymous caller can't articulate an actual crime or specific intent to commit a crime, then the officer has no authority to stop the vehicle, period. Honestly I don't see what is so difficult to understand about it.

Yes you're right the law is crystal clear. Investigative stops are legal. Honestly I don't know what's so difficult to understand about it. Are you suggesting that every time an officer answers a suspicious person call he's breaking the law?

The correct course of action is to sue, seek indictment, or whatever other legal remedy is available to the victim in this case.

On what grounds would you sue? Civil rights? Nashmack wasn't singled out because he was a different color or wasn't in the correct neighborhood for his race. He was stopped because he fit the description of the man seen loading the gun into his car and he was driving a car that matched the description down to the license plate. Excessive force? The officers received a report of an armed man. No jury in the country is going to say they acted improperly. Seek indictment? No laws were broken. The police not only have a legal right to make an investigative stop, they have an obligation to investigate all the complaints.

The whole fiasco probably would have been avoided if the complainant had given the address where Nashmack put his rifle in the car or the dispatcher had known there was a firing range at that address.

mustanger98 said;
I'm reminded of one of Col. Cooper's collumns... he was talking about how so many cops now think they have to cuff everybody. He said some of the best and most effective law enforcement outfits in history almost never did that. He gave for instances of how no Roman citizen was ever shackled, plus that the Mexican Rurales under their El Presidente Diaz thought it rude to remove a suspect's sidearm.

Well so many cops think they have to handcuff everyone because department policy requires it. In many deparments an officer can get time off if he so much as cuffs a subject in front instead of behind his back. I just participated in a survey conducted by a large police trining agency on handcuffing policies. I'll post the results when they become available, but I'd bet that most agencies have policies requiring everyone to be cuffed.

So you take this insulting manner of treating the private citizen (as opposed to "civilian")

Like it or not, anyone not in police, fire or military service is a civilian. Get any dictionary out and look up the word civilian. This is from the American Heritage Dictionary Second College Edition:
ci-vil-ian(si-vil'yan) n. 1.A person following the pursuits of civil life as distinguished from one serving in a police, firefighting or military force. 2.A student of or specialist in Roman or civil law. -adj Of or pertaining to civilians or civil life; nonmilitary

LTC Cooper would not approve of people attempting to change the meaning of a word in common usage to further a political goal. That is a tactic our enemy uses and we continually decry it here when they do it.

Civilian is not an insult. It means exactly what the dictionary says it means. No more and no less.

The Real Hawkeye said;
If I were to put someone on the ground at gun point, and then explained to the judge that I personally saw him exiting a building with a firearm (let alone that someone told me they saw it), I guarantee that I would be spending some time in the slammer.

That's right because a private citizen is not permitted to detain someone if they didn't personally witness a crime being committed. However in all the states I am aware of a peace officer, police officer or however the law describes the officer is specifically permitted to do just that by law. Many states have citizens arrest laws similar to what we have here in Illinois and that is one of the few differences in arrest powers a peace officer has over a private citizen. Here are the applicable Illinois statutes:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072500050HArt%2E+107&ActID=1966&ChapAct=725%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=54&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+PROCEDURE&SectionID=30017&SeqStart=16100&SeqEnd=17562&ActName=Code+of+Criminal+Procedure+of+1963%2E
(725 ILCS 5/107‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 107‑3)
Sec. 107‑3. Arrest by private person.
Any person may arrest another when he has reasonable grounds to believe that an offense other than an ordinance violation is being committed.
(Source: Laws 1963, p. 2836.)

Note it doesn't even have to be a felony. The key word hear is is. A private citizen can't detain anyone to investigate if a crime was committed he can only detain or arrest if he has reasonable grounds to believe a crime is in progress. If he sees someone walk out of a building with a gun and he prones that person out at gun point with no other evidence that a crime is being committed he commits aggravated assault, unlawful use of weapons and unlawful restraint.

A peace officer can arrest under these circumstances:

(725 ILCS 5/107‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 107‑2)
Sec. 107‑2. (1) Arrest by Peace Officer. A peace officer may arrest a person when:
(a) He has a warrant commanding that such person be arrested; or
(b) He has reasonable grounds to believe that a warrant for the person's arrest has been issued in this State or in another jurisdiction; or
(c) He has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is committing or has committed an offense.

Note the phrase is committing or has committed an offense. The only real difference in a arrest powers is only a peace officer can arrest for an ordinance violation or if he believes an offense has been committed.

Whn it comes to use of force in making an arrest the law is identical:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+7&ActID=1876&ChapAct=720%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&SectionID=60595&SeqStart=7800000&SeqEnd=9300000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961%2E
(720 ILCS 5/7‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑5)
Sec. 7‑5. Peace officer's use of force in making arrest. (a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that:
(1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
(2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.
(b) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid.
(Source: P.A. 84‑1426.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑6) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑6)
Sec. 7‑6. Private person's use of force in making arrest.
(a) A private person who makes, or assists another private person in making a lawful arrest is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if he were summoned or directed by a peace officer to make such arrest, except that he is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.
(b) A private person who is summoned or directed by a peace officer to assist in making an arrest which is unlawful, is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful, unless he knows that the arrest is unlawful.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

So like it or not, you empowered the police to detain suspects to investigate crimes. And private citizens do not have that power. So yes, if you as a private citizen were to prone out a guy you saw walk out of a building with a gun, you would be facing some time in the slammer unless you reasonably believed a crime was in progress.

Thes laws are not new, it's not some conspiracy to form a police state. It's the way things are and the way they have been for decades.

You guys are whining about a response to the fact that in many parts of the country the gun culture is dying out. I'd wager that 20 years ago in most parts of the country that complaint would never have been made. And if it was it would have been dismissed out of hand. It's just a sign we're losing the cultural war in some parts of the country.

If you look at the totality of the circumstances you might understand the response a little better. from Nashmack's post #58:

In fact, when I got pulled over I was heading in that direction, I had just turned onto the Perimeter road wich goes around the edged of the airport (for those of you in this area, I was right by UPS when I got pulled over) so that may have been a contributing factor in the officer's response. These days you certainly can't be too cautious when approaching an armed person near the airport.

I noticed one person post something about the clothes I was wearing, and the cleaning bill for em. As to my attire, I was wearing BDU trousers and a black work shirt, so no, I'm not too terribly concerned about getting those dirty as those are my work clothes, and IMHO work clothes are meant to get dirty

So we have a report by by a hopolophobe of a man in military garb putting a long gun into his car and heading for the airport. Seems to me that reasonable grounds for an investigative stop do in fact exist. Most of you guys who are complaining would be posting your outrage if this thread was a story about how Nashmack drove over to the airport and shot something up and the police had ignored the woman's complaint because she didn't say he was committing a crime when she saw him.

The posts in that thread would be all abolut how useless and incompetant the police are and how if only the woman who had reported him possessed a ccw permit and stopped him the crime never would have happened.

You can't have it both ways.

Jeff

SomeKid
April 29, 2006, 04:28 AM
Spreadfire,

My issue is with the way the cop acted. Like I said in my post, making sure he was all legal is fine. Proning him out, disarming, and treating him like a criminal is way beyond acceptable treatment.

a carry permit doesn't negate the fact that a person is about to, or has, committed a crime while armed.

What crime was committed by Nash?

I hear cricketts chirping. No crime was committed. Your strawman has fallen.

Cops shouldn't just assume a guy who fits the description and might have a gun IS a bad guy. (Especially when a man can fit the description, have a gun, and be totally law abiding.)

the bottom line, at least to me, is that the officer has the right to go home safely at the end of the night.

As a rule, I agree. I know a bunch of cops (and their families). The ones I know are good, and operate on the up and up. There are other cops though. When cops act in the manner that Nash described, I think they should hang.

Jeff posed this question.

On what grounds would you sue? Civil rights?

This is why we advise people to visit their closest assault lawyer. Mental anguish, or pointing out that the cop went overboard and then sue for civil rights infractions works for me. I personally hope that the cop loses his job and every worldly possession he has to Nash, assuming everything we know is as it was.

The Real Hawkeye
April 29, 2006, 10:29 AM
This sometimes means thinking in a "worst case senario" frame of mind. Ones that don't, especially on "man with a gun call", at some point get a really neat funeral on the states dime.Um, excuse me, but since when is being "a man with a gun" a crime in this country? My golly, if it's a crime, cops should just hang out near ranges and go on arrest orgies every day. They'd get a gold badge in no time.

Srigs
April 29, 2006, 11:42 AM
Nope it has not happened to me. You handled it very well and did you ask the police to inform the woman that she call the police on someone exiting a firing range?

insidious_calm
April 29, 2006, 01:11 PM
Spreadfirearms said:

im not sure where you got this information, but police DO have the right to detain someone for a reasonable amount of time if they have reasonable suspicion to believe a crime has been committed. there is no legal requirement for an officer to witness something in order for a legal detention.

further, there is no legal obligation for a caller (citizen) to articulate that a crime has actually occurred. people are detained every day by police for looking suspicious. an officer can lawfully detain someone for just that, so long as there is a legitimate call by a citizen reporting that person or behavior. citizens are not expected to be legal experts when they report a possible crime.


Jeff White said:
Could you cite the state or USSC case that outlawed investigative stops?

...
And
...

The officers had a description of Nashmack, his car, to include the license plate number and a statement from a witness that he exited a building with a gun in hand. I'm pretty sure that would be sufficient grounds to make an investigative stop anywhere in the country. Around here a call like that would be dispatched with the last line saying Make your own case. Which means that the witness didn't observe a crime in progress and it is up to the officer to decide if there really was a crime committed. A complaint like the hopolophobic woman made is investigated because there is no way to know the full story. For all the dispatcher knew Nashmack could have just murdered several people and was making his getaway.

...
AND
...

You don't know that. Nowhere in this story does it say what the complainant said or what the dispatcher put out over the radio. If the call was dispatched as simply a man walked out of a building and put a rifle in the car, then no, there was probably no justification for doing a felony stop. But until you know how the call was dispatched you can't judge the officer's actions.

...
AND
...

On what grounds would you sue? Civil rights? Nashmack wasn't singled out because he was a different color or wasn't in the correct neighborhood for his race. He was stopped because he fit the description of the man seen loading the gun into his car and he was driving a car that matched the description down to the license plate. Excessive force? The officers received a report of an armed man. No jury in the country is going to say they acted improperly. Seek indictment? No laws were broken. The police not only have a legal right to make an investigative stop, they have an obligation to investigate all the complaints.


Gentlemen I believe my assessment of the law in this instance is correct. TERRY is not the governing law here. Florida v J.L. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=98-1993) is the controlling case here. Which held: An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person. An officer, for the protection of himself and others, may conduct a carefully limited search for weapons in the outer clothing of persons engaged in unusual conduct where, inter alia, the officer reasonably concludes in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons in question may be armed and presently dangerous. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 30 . Here, the officers' suspicion that J. L. was carrying a weapon arose not from their own observations but solely from a call made from an unknown location by an unknown caller. The tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop: It provided no predictive information and therefore left the police without means to test the informant's knowledge or credibility. See Alabama v. White , 496 U. S. 325, 327 . The contentions of Florida and the United States as amicus that the tip was reliable because it accurately described J. L.'s visible attributes misapprehend the reliability needed for a tip to justify a Terry stop. The reasonable suspicion here at issue requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person. This Court also declines to adopt the argument that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a "firearm exception," under which a tip alleging an illegal gun would justify a stop and frisk even if the accusation would fail standard pre-search reliability testing. The facts of this case do not require the Court to speculate about the circumstances under which the danger alleged in an anonymous tip might be so great-- e.g., a report of a person carrying a bomb--as to justify a search even without a showing of reliability.


To further apply the caselaw given here. You couldn't stop a "suspicious" vehicle cruising a neighborhood based SOLELY on a phoned in complaint. You couldn't "seize" a man walking at night who had been reported as a prowler without specific complaint of a crime. You the officer must PERSONALLY WITNESS the "reasonable articulable facts that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed". Given the nature of traffic laws these days it wouldn't be hard to do. Failure of the officer to develope prima facia evidence of a traffic violation just shows a lack of respect for the law and the individuals rights IMO.

As I stated earlier, based upon what was given by the original poster, the officers seizure of the victim was unlawful. He should sue for unlawful seizure, and depending on the state laws, the officer should be indicted for what we call agravated battery here. The officer willfully, knowingly threatened serious injury or death with a weapon. Because the officer should have known his actions were unlawful qualified immunity from prosecution should not apply. That may or may not be the case there as it is here. At any rate a grand jury should be allowed to decide whether or not the officers actions were appropriate and within the law.


I.C.

Hawkmoon
April 29, 2006, 01:51 PM
The post immediately above sums it up nicely, but I would add one point:

The whole fiasco probably would have been avoided if the complainant had given the address where Nashmack put his rifle in the car or the dispatcher had known there was a firing range at that address.
The whole fiasco could equally have been avoided if the dispatcher had asked the caller if the man with the rifle was doing anything illegal. When the answer came back "Well, he was putting it in the trunk of his car," the appropriate response SHOULD have been, "M'am, that's legal in New Hampshire. Have a nice evening. Goodbye."

As I commented earlier in this thread, it rather appears that Nashmack was stopped and proned out for "suspicion of engaging in lawful activity." That should NEVER happen.

Ragnarok
April 29, 2006, 01:59 PM
I would never let anyone use my gun. I also thought you said a girl snitched on you?:confused:

Jeff White
April 29, 2006, 03:29 PM
The Real Hawkeye asked;
Um, excuse me, but since when is being "a man with a gun" a crime in this country?

It's not a crime unless the "man with a gun" is in a prohibited area. However a "man with a gun" in certain parts of the country equals a suspicious person complaint. The fact that the complaint was made at all is nothing more then another sign that we're losing the culture war.

SomeKid said;
This is why we advise people to visit their closest assault lawyer. Mental anguish, or pointing out that the cop went overboard and then sue for civil rights infractions works for me. I personally hope that the cop loses his job and every worldly possession he has to Nash, assuming everything we know is as it was.

Mental anguish is going to be a little hard to prove, Nashmack has publically stated that he's not upset with the incident. Police officers are covered by the civil torts act. He's in the clear any settlement will come from tax money.

insideous calm said;
To further apply the caselaw given here. You couldn't stop a "suspicious" vehicle cruising a neighborhood based SOLELY on a phoned in complaint. You couldn't "seize" a man walking at night who had been reported as a prowler without specific complaint of a crime. You the officer must PERSONALLY WITNESS the "reasonable articulable facts that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed". Given the nature of traffic laws these days it wouldn't be hard to do. Failure of the officer to develope prima facia evidence of a traffic violation just shows a lack of respect for the law and the individuals rights IMO.

First off, no one was seized. There was a detention, otherwise called a field interview. Secondly, you don't know that this was an anonymous complaint. No one does. And since the complainant was later identified as being from Massachussetts it's highly unlikely this was in fact an anonymous complaint.

Let's look at what we know, not what we think we know. In post number one Nashmack states that he walked out of the range with an uncased .22 with the action open and barrel pointing at the ground. We know that it's after dark. Nashmack told us in post number 57 that he was wearing BDU trousers and a black work shirt. He also told us that he appeared to be heading for the airport. We know from his signature line that Nashmack is a young man.

Here's what we have, caller (most likely not anonymous if we know she was from MA) calls in and reports a young man wearing a dark shirt and BDU trousers just walked out of a building with a gun. Complainant provides description of Nashmack's car, to include the license plate number.

We have a young man in military garb with an uncased long gun leaving a building and heading towards the airport after dark. It addds up to reasonable suspicion that there may be criminal activity. Most people case their weapons even in places where it's not required by law just so they don't damage them. Put the uncased long gun, military garb, time of day and heading for the airport (a place where weapons are prohibited and also a high crime area) together and it adds up to reasonable suspicion that there may be criminal activity. No one knows at this point if it's Nashmack driving his car or someone who just shot Nashmack in the building and stole his car. Case the gun or give the officers the knowledge that the building was a firing range and it may not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion. There are grounds to make an investigative stop and conduct a field interview.

As I stated earlier, based upon what was given by the original poster, the officers seizure of the victim was unlawful.

Again, Nashmack was not seized. He was lawfully detained.

He should sue for unlawful seizure, and depending on the state laws,

Something or someone must be actually seized before there is a seizure, lawful or unlawful.

The officer willfully, knowingly threatened serious injury or death with a weapon. Because the officer should have known his actions were unlawful qualified immunity from prosecution should not apply.
(720 ILCS 5/7‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑5)
Sec. 7‑5. Peace officer's use of force in making arrest. (a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that:
(1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
(2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.
(b) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid.
(Source: P.A. 84‑1426.)
Illinois law on peace officer's use of force:
(720 ILCS 5/7‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑5)
Sec. 7‑5. Peace officer's use of force in making arrest. (a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that:
(1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
(2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.
(b) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid.
(Source: P.A. 84‑1426.)
[color=blue](720 ILCS 5/7‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑5)
Sec. 7‑5. Peace officer's use of force in making arrest. (a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that:
(1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
(2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.
(b) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid.
(Source: P.A. 84‑1426.)

The threat of deadly force against a subject you have reason to believe is armed is reasonable force. The fact that after investigation no arrest was made, does not invalidate the original use of force.

This is not a police issue, this is a culture war issue.

Jeff

The Real Hawkeye
April 29, 2006, 03:38 PM
Hawk and Insidious, great posts.

insidious_calm
April 29, 2006, 06:25 PM
Jeff,

You are not correct in your definition of seizure. The USSC defines anytime you are not free to go of your own accord as a seizure under the 4th amendment. Specifically;
The Fourth Amendment applies to all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16 -19 (1968). "[W]henever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has `seized' that person," id., at 16, and the Fourth Amendment requires that the seizure be "reasonable." As with other categories of police action subject to Fourth Amendment constraints, the reasonableness of such seizures depends on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers. Id., at 20-21; Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 536 -537 (1967).

More importantly, the USSC says that any seizure must be reasonable in light of the circumstances. In this particular case we have case law that says it was not. Your insistence that the officers use of deadly force was reasonable is also incorrect. The reasonableness of the officers use of deadly force or threat of deadly force is also dependent upon the reasonableness of the seizure itself. If the seizure itself is unreasonable then no amount of force, no matter how insignificant, is reasonable.

You emphasis upon whether or not the caller was "anonymous", and what the definition of anonymous is, is misplaced as well. The court did not cite the callers anonymity as the relevant test in this situation. The court cited the callers credibilty as the relevant test. In fact the court went so far as to say that the caller insistence that a person was carying a gun unlawfully (implies a crime) is not enough. The tip must be RELIABLE in it's assertion of illegality. That is why the onus is on the responding officer and the dispatcher to determine whether or not a crime was commited and not the caller before a seizure is legal.

In this case the officer was wrong. He should be held to account for the innappropriateness of his actions.


I.C.

mustanger98
April 29, 2006, 07:24 PM
Like it or not, anyone not in police, fire or military service is a civilian. Get any dictionary out and look up the word civilian. This is from the American Heritage Dictionary Second College Edition:
ci-vil-ian(si-vil'yan) n. 1.A person following the pursuits of civil life as distinguished from one serving in a police, firefighting or military force. 2.A student of or specialist in Roman or civil law. -adj Of or pertaining to civilians or civil life; nonmilitary

The way I've always understood it, either one is "civilian" or one is "military". The military- in each branch- has it's own police (MP, AP, SP) and firefighter units. So non-military police and firefighting outfits must be civilian. I'm simply differentiating between those in police and firefighter outfits and "private citizens". Notice your cited definition did say "-adj Of or pertaining to civilians or civil life; nonmilitary".

LTC Cooper would not approve of people attempting to change the meaning of a word in common usage to further a political goal. That is a tactic our enemy uses and we continually decry it here when they do it.

This ain't about politics. This is about how we all who are on the same side need to be on the same page. This is about not having a mentality from the cops that "we're at war and you're just a civilian" as somebody else posted in one of these threads. This is also about private citizens not thinking of themselves as beneath the police who work for us. We who are not criminals are all citizens.

Civilian is not an insult. It means exactly what the dictionary says it means. No more and no less.

Re-read my post. I never said "civilian" was an insult. I simply said cops have no call to insult other citizens (as opposed to criminals) who are not cops.

I hope I've clarified this point.

Preacherman
April 29, 2006, 08:06 PM
Folks, I think this thread has degenerated into a Shakespearean farce - "much sound and fury, signifying nothing".

If you enjoyed reading about "So this girl called the police on me..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!