Middle-aged lady disarmed during traffic stop--SOP???


PDA






TamThompson
July 8, 2004, 03:03 PM
Yesterday, I was pulled over by Austin Police motorcycle cop for speeding. (And yes, I was speeding, but nothing bigtime--we're talking 10 over the limit.)

I pulled over onto a quiet neighborhood street and rolled down my driver's side window, but the officer came instead to my passenger-side window. I rolled it down.

Without so much as a word of greeting, he thrust his radar detector into my car, and then told me how fast I was going in what zone. He then asked for my license and registration.

I handed him my Texas driver's license, Texas concealed handgun license, and proof of insurance, then placed both hands atop the steering wheel and said in a pleasant, non-threatening tone, "Officer, I am legally armed, and I'm going to keep my hands right up here where you can see them."

"Where are your guns?" the officer asked.

"One is in my purse and the other is in my left front pocket," I answered, keeping my hands on top of the steering wheel and not moving them.

He said, "Ma'am, I need you to step out of the car."

I got out.

"Come back here," the officer said, motioning me to the back of my vehicle, a Ford Explorer.

I went to the back of the car.

"Put your hands against the car," the officer ordered.

I complied, wondering what on earth I, a 46-year-old Caucasian female who stands 5'3" tall, could have possibly done to provoke this.

"I'm going to reach into your pocket and take out your gun," he told me. He then reached his hand into my left front shorts pocket and tried to remove my gun and the holster, which fit rather tightly into the pocket. He struggled with it for a while, his hand in my pocket the entire time. Finally, he gave up on getting the holster out and just pulled out my gun.

This cop was about 6'4, mid-twenties, bald-headed, and very big and strong-looking. I wasn't OK with being disarmed, but also didn't want to start anything by trying to resist and make a poor situation much, much worse.

"I'm going to lay this on your front seat," he told me.

After he wrote me a ticket, he told me I could go, so I got back in the car. I looked over at my handgun laying in full public view on my passenger seat, then looked up and saw the officer standing there beside my passenger window.

I was very confused: my handgun was unconcealed, thus breaking the law, but I was afraid to pick it up for fear the officer might think I was threatening him. An awkward moment passed.

Finally, he said, "Ma'am, I'd appreciate it if you'd just drive on down the road a bit before you pick up that gun."

I nodded, and complied, and was thus forced to break the law by driving down the road with an unconcealed handgun.

After I'd gone about a quarter mile, I wondered how to pick up my gun without scaring other drivers or brandishing a firearm. Finally, I pulled into a dead-end road and concealed my handgun.

I want to be very clear: I have no complaints about the cop's friendliness or courteousness--he was polite, courteous, and friendly.

What I have a big problem with was his ordering me out of my car, making my put my hands against my vehicle like I was some criminal (which embarrassed and humiliated me), his putting his hand in my pocket (I am female), his disarming me when there was no reason to do so (please check the demographics on how many short, 46-year-old Caucasian women who hold CHL's commit violent crimes against police officers), and his forcing me to break the concealed-carry law by driving away with a pistol in plain view.

CHL's should not be disarmed during routine traffic stops unless they exhibit threatening behavior, and I was doing all I could to demonstrate that I was no threat.

Does anyone know if this is standard operating procedure for the Austin, Texas, Police Department? If so, I need to raise some cain.

If you enjoyed reading about "Middle-aged lady disarmed during traffic stop--SOP???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Josey
July 8, 2004, 03:09 PM
Sorry, deal with it. That is academy procedure. If you advise the officer you ARE armed, they are taught to secure the weapon. Officer safety. You would have a lawsuit IF there had been a ND. The officer probably never saw a pocket holster. This is not unusual.

Diggler
July 8, 2004, 03:21 PM
Hmmm...

"The officer probably never saw a pocket holster. This is not unusual."

Unknown gun, in an unfamiliar holster, in a front pocket on another individual. So... protocol is to reach in and fumble with a LOADED GUN in someone's pocket, who has given no reason for alarm?? Sounds like Tam was the one who was endangered in this situation.

Remind me if I'm pulled over with a gun in my pocket to simply drop my pants.

Andrew Rothman
July 8, 2004, 03:23 PM
Abalone.

It is NOT standard procedure, most places. From everything I've read, it is much more common for the cop to politely ask that you leave it right where it is.

I take a very dim view of being told, "Deal with it" by authority figures who condone such bad behavior.

As I wrote here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80379)...I roll down the window, turn on the interior light if it's dark, and keep my hands on the wheel.

When it gets to "Driver's license please," I say, IN THIS ORDER, "I have a PERMIT to carry a HANDGUN. I am carrying it now, on my left hip. How would you like me to proceed?

I got stopped by a Minneapolis police officer a month ago. I did this. He said, "That's fine."

He didn't back away, put his hand on his gun, or appear the least bit nervous as I reached past my gun for my wallet.

I can't promise that all cops will behave as reasonably, but courtesy often begets courtesy.

Hawkmoon
July 8, 2004, 03:25 PM
CHL's should not be disarmed during routine traffic stops unless they exhibit threatening behavior, and I was doing all I could to demonstrate that I was no threat.
Where is this written? My understanding is that it is standard procedure to disarm any one or to separate them from the weapon during all stops. I am not an LEO and I don't know how widely SOP varies from one department or jurisdiction to another, but personally I would fully expect to be disarmed for the duration of a traffic stop.

CentralTexas
July 8, 2004, 03:29 PM
In Texas for the most part they may cut you a break with a concealed carry license. I'm sure it's an officer discretion thing but I would call and complain as I have never heard of this happening and I've heard from numerous folks their experiences here in Texas.
What if you were disabled? Why put you in harms way outside the vehicle anyway? I'd complain...
CT

R.H. Lee
July 8, 2004, 03:34 PM
Can't be too careful......"officer safety" 'ya know :rolleyes:

Sounds like something that might happen in California.

answerguy
July 8, 2004, 03:46 PM
I suggest that you go have a talk with his superior. Describe the situation as calmly as you did with us and see what they have to say.

jnojr
July 8, 2004, 04:04 PM
I agree with answerguy. I just don't see how it's safe or prudent for someone to reach into another persons pocket or whatever and start fumbling for an unfamiliar weapon. The officer saw the CCW, so he knows this isn't someone who's going to start shooting it out with him. I think he's probably a city guy who has "learned" that guns are for cops, and that a gun that isn't in a cops hand is a danger. I strongly feel this should be addressed with the department, so they can have a uniform policy to deal with CCW holders.

Alex
July 8, 2004, 04:15 PM
I had a similar occurance happen to me about 6 years ago in North Dakota. I was also stopped for speeding (also about 10 miles over the limit on a lonely stretch of rural Dakota highway). In that instance the officer saw a holster in the back seat of my car (a junker that was given to me and tossed in the backseat of my car and forgotten) which prompted an inquiry about whether I was armed. I told him I had a concealed weapon permit and a handgun under my coat in the front passengers. I gave him the permit and the drivers license that he hadn't yet asked for. He asked me first if it was loaded, when I said it was loaded, but the chamber was empty, he asked me to hand it to him. I politely declined and he asked me to step out of the vehicle. After watching him reach into the vechicle and fumble with my 1911 for a few minutes I found myself wondering if he was going to end up shooting himself in the foot, about all he suceeded in doing was chambering a round, I had to direct him how to clear the weapon, which only suceeded in getting him embarassed and angry at the same time. He directed me to the back seat of the patrol car where I was locked in (without a search and or handcuffs) and than he attempted to do a check on my concealed carry permit. I found out the state of North Dakota did not have a quick way of checking these permits and all the dispatcher told him was that If I had one it was likely genuine. I got a lecture from the officer about how I should have kept my gun in the glove box instead of on the seat next to me (why??) I told him that I didn't keep it there because most times they ask for registration and proof of insurance (this guy didn't) and I didn't want to have to reach around it to get those documents. He also made comments to the effect that there wasn't much need in rural North Dakota to be carrying a gun like mine, but he figured there were lots of people like me where I came from (another rural North Dakota community) In the end he gave me my ticket, and my gun and sent me on my way. My father has been a North Dakota judge for over 20 years and I have lots of recollections of law enforcement around my farm growing up, all of the of the ones I have met have respected second amendment rights, this one apparently is in the minority.

ProGlock
July 8, 2004, 04:24 PM
No sorry, in this case I have to side with the officer. Texas state law indicates that an officer can disarm you if he/she sees fit to do so.

Now if that ruffles your feathers in the manner he did it or the fact that he left a gun in open view, deal with it.

Your argument against the police department...sorry the PD will win every time. They have the law on their side in this case that the officer can disarm anyone who is carrying.

cropcirclewalker
July 8, 2004, 04:36 PM
He was copping a feel. One of his bennies.

answerguy
July 8, 2004, 04:57 PM
If this had been a Glock (did the LEO inquire as to what type of gun it was) in the pocket how easy would it have been for a ND? And if there had been a ND what are the odds our lady with the CCW would have been hit?

flatrock
July 8, 2004, 05:14 PM
Where is this written? My understanding is that it is standard procedure to disarm any one or to separate them from the weapon during all stops. I am not an LEO and I don't know how widely SOP varies from one department or jurisdiction to another, but personally I would fully expect to be disarmed for the duration of a traffic stop.

Why? What threat is a law abiding CCW holder? If the person was a felon, they wouldn't have a CCW permit. We have a right to keep and bear arms, yet we are sometimes treated like a criminal for doing so, even after jumping through the hoops of permit processes.

Why is it reasonable for a Police officer to assume that you are going to attempt to use your gun against them when you have a permit, and have already notified them that you have a gun. If you were going to do the officer harm, you wouldn't be announcing to the officer that you were armed first.

Unless the person who has been stopped is acting aggressive, or there is suspicion of a crime, the officer has no reason to disarm them.

Many Officers, despite the fact that they carry a firearm every day are not very experienced with gun handling. There are a lot of accidental (really negligent) discharges by police officers which shows this. In the interest of officer and citizen safety, the gun should remain holstered. Reasonable officers that have been around gun owners and are familiar with handling guns understand this.

I would suggest calmly and politely talking with the supervisor. The officer in this case seems like a nice guy that needs a bit more training and experience in dealing with CCW holders.

Wildalaska
July 8, 2004, 05:17 PM
He was copping a feel. One of his bennies.

Sort of figgered youd chime in :barf:

WildletsstartthecopbashingAlaska

answerguy
July 8, 2004, 05:26 PM
...this is starting to sound like a romance novel.

"I'm going to reach into your pocket and take out your gun," he told me. He then reached his hand into my left front shorts pocket and tried to remove my gun and the holster, which fit rather tightly into the pocket. He struggled with it for a while, his hand in my pocket the entire time. Finally, he gave up on getting the holster out and just pulled out my gun.

This cop was about 6'4, mid-twenties, bald-headed, and very big and strong-looking. I wasn't OK with being disarmed, but also didn't want to start anything by trying to resist and make a poor situation much, much worse.

"I'm going to lay this on your front seat," he told me.

I need a smoke.

pinblaster
July 8, 2004, 05:31 PM
When you get pulled over by the cops, do what you are told, speak only to answear thier questions and don't say anything else. If they don't ask if you are armed don't tell them you are. If they don't ask for your carry permit don't give it to them.

Correia
July 8, 2004, 05:31 PM
This is something that we as CCW instructors are pushing for in this state. We are trying to get it so that there is at least a small bit of mandatory instruction in the academy on this topic. Right now nothing is taught about CCW. We are on the same side and want to avoid stupid accidents.

Officer's reactions depend greatly on the experience of the cop, and the SOP of the department. Having some training on this for new officers would really benefit both us and them. Us because it will minimize stupid problems like the above, and secondly it will spare the department from some multi million dollar lawsuits when a CCW holder gets shot accidently while the officer is fiddling with an unfamiliar firearm.

auschip
July 8, 2004, 05:36 PM
When you get pulled over by the cops, do what you are told, speak only to answear thier questions and don't say anything else. If they don't ask if you are armed don't tell them you are. If they don't ask for your carry permit don't give it to them.



Congrats! You just broke the law in TX!

:D

answerguy
July 8, 2004, 05:36 PM
When you get pulled over by the cops, do what you are told, speak only to answear thier questions and don't say anything else. If they don't ask if you are armed don't tell them you are. If they don't ask for your carry permit don't give it to them.

Careful with your advice. In Michigan, and other states, this will get you in trouble. In Micigan we are required to tell a LEO that we are packing when we are stopped.

El Tejon
July 8, 2004, 05:38 PM
That silly law down there is an accident waiting to happen.:eek:

Sounds like a letter to the Captain of Patrol and Chief and Mayor and a copy to the city attorney with an emphasis on the risk of negligent discharge to the public.

Cosmoline
July 8, 2004, 05:42 PM
The officer is an idiot, SOP or no. He risked a ND by groping around for a loaded firearm. Stupid stupid stupid

bamawrx
July 8, 2004, 05:46 PM
Tam,

Write a nice letter to the chief describing the event. The officer was fully within his rights to disarm you due to officer safety rules. However, it sounds like the actions did not make either of you any safer. Politely suggest that better familiarization with weapon systems and carry systems might be in order, and ask if it is the department policy to disarm ALL legally armed motorists or just when the officer feels threatened.

The chief relies on the public to let him know what is going on, so do your part and write the letter. A similar thing happened recently to a friend of mine with an officer that was not familiar with the 1911. He had his finger on the trigger while attempting to remove the safety. Yes, there was a round chambered, and his back was to the motorist the whole time. The officer thought the safety was a de-cocker!

My friend wrote a nice letter to the chief, and he was very appreciative.
.

TamThompson
July 8, 2004, 06:33 PM
Hawkmoon said:
Where is this written? My understanding is that it is standard procedure to disarm any one or to separate them from the weapon during all stops. I am not an LEO and I don't know how widely SOP varies from one department or jurisdiction to another, but personally I would fully expect to be disarmed for the duration of a traffic stop.

It's written right here on The High Road because it's my opinion.

And to those who think I should just shut up and submit...I did that yesterday, to avoid going to jail or getting shot. I will most certainly not shut up and submit to this. I have a First Amendment right to complain when I feel my Second Amendment rights AND Fourth Amendment rights are being violated. And they were. I pay that cops salary through a ton of taxes that we pay.

I am a professional writer, it's my fulltime business. I already have an assignment from a local mag to write an article for their October issue concerning the erosion of civil liberties in America and how we are moving towards a police state. APD just handed me some new material yesterday. They picked on the wrong lady.

You can bet I'll publicize this--my pen (or keyboard) has even more power than all my mightiest guns combined.

I'll be writing some letters.

Thanks for the feedback, y'all!

csmkersh
July 8, 2004, 06:35 PM
I'm 70 miles South of Tam in San Antonio. I've had numerous occasions where I've shown both my TDL and CHL to an officer. I've never been disarmed. Lately. they don't even ask where my pistol is - just glance at the CHL and hand it back and get the pertinent info off the CHL.

I do know that Austin, TX has far too many people with NYC or California attitudes in policy making positions for APD. There was policy that if you failed to show your CHL, you were going to jail even if you weren't armed. Then Austin illegally allowed concert promoters to ban legal CCW on/in public facilities/parks.

Other than suggesting Tam move to either Killeen or San Antonio, the only other suggestion is just hand the officer the TDL and CHL and keep your mouth shut unless asked if you are carrying. Don't volunteer any information.

Ellery Holt
July 8, 2004, 06:35 PM
Listen to the reasonwildalaskaable opinions here: Deal with it. Don't make a complaint, you have no grounds -- it's standard procedure. It's done for officer safety.

Further, I suggest that you give more thought to how and what you carry. You don't seem to have given any consideration at all to keeping yourself and the officer safe during times when the police must disarm you. Think how bad you would feel if you ended up causing the gun to go off because you foolishly chose a weapon and carry method unfamiliar to the officer.

Otherwise I say you did well. You sound like a nice lady, so why do you hate the police so much?

madcowburger
July 8, 2004, 06:49 PM
El Tejon and Cosmoline, I agree: that "policy" IS an "accident" waiting to happen.

A holstered pistol (which no one is touching) is safe. A loaded gun changing hands, or being literally *blindly* fumbled with in somone's pants pocket is NOT.

Neither is a loaded semiautomatic pistol which someone clearly unfamiliar with how it works is fumbling with, trying to unload.

Alex and Bamawrx, you would think that even a cop who'd never handled any semiautomatic pistol other than a Glock would know that to clear it, one removes the magazine first, *then* runs the slide to clear the chamber; and to keep their finger off the trigger while doing it.:rolleyes:

Correia, *are* we on the same side? I used to think so, but I started to wonder around 1986. And my doubts have grown every time I've heard of just such incidents as Tam describes, which are pretty darn common, if not routine.

Auschip and Answerguy, I believe you that in Texas and Michigan permit holders are required by law to proactively volunteer the information that they have permits and/or are armed during traffic stops. But what about when walking? Shopping? Just standing around?

In my own state the law requires a permit holder to show his permit to any police officer who *asks* to see it, but does not require him or her to *volunteer* the information.

When I first started carrying "legally," with a permit, I thought that I *would* probably volunteer the information if stopped by the police, just as a courtesy or good will gesture, to put them at ease. I changed my mind as reports similar to, and worse than, Tam's began to trickle then pour in. It was clear that many if not most cops resented armed "civilians," and would give them as hard a time as the law allowed, and then some.

One frequently reported thing was that the cop would act as if he were handing the gun back to the permit holder, after running its serial number "too see if it's stolen" and then sort of accidentally-on-purpose *drop* the sometimes expensive gun on the pavement. In a few cases they not-so-"accidentally" *kicked* the "civilian's" gun into a roadside ditch before driving off.

So, the first time I was accosted by the police while out walking on a sunny Sunday afternoon and while "legally"(?) armed with a concealed pistol, I didn't mention the fact that I was a permit holder or that I was armed when they started barking demands for some "I.D" at me. I just leaned on my walking stick and handed them a driver's license. (I wish now I'd had some Elwood P. Dowd-like business cards printed up, and had just handed them one of those.)

That was because I didn't want to be treated like all those other armed Americans I'd heard about. They were so bug-eyed focused on my walking stick that it evidently never crossed their minds I might have some other weapon anyway. I felt almost like a stage magician or illusionist employing "misdirection" -- "Pay no attention to that Glock 19 behind the curtain, er, jacket; just keep your eyes glued to that walking stick."

Some of us "civilians" worked pretty hard to get "shall-issue" CCW permit systems established in our states. We did it so we *wouldn't* be treated like criminals anymore for exercising our Constitutional rights. But now we often get treated as bad or worse, even though we are completely "legal." So why did we bother? What was it all for? Just to give the police yet another pretext to give us a hard time -- at their "discretion," of course?

My CCW permit expires in September. It's going to cost me a $60 re-licensing fee, plus however much it'll cost me to have a *new* color photo made, to renew it. Also, I've got to get something notarized by the sheriff.

I'm not sure I will renew it. $60 is a great deal of money to me right now. And I don't like hanging around in places like courthouses and sheriffs' offices, which are off-limits to armed Americans, I mean "civilians."

This is not Iraq. I'm not an Iraqi, and I'll bet Tam is not either, nor are most permit holders. The police don't need to be acting like an occupying army, and we don't need to be treated like occupied Iraqis.

MCB

R.H. Lee
July 8, 2004, 06:49 PM
You don't seem to have given any consideration at all to keeping yourself and the officer safe during times when the police must disarm you

You intended that as joking sarcasm, right? You can't possibly be that sheeple-minded :confused:

Diggler
July 8, 2004, 06:51 PM
Think how bad you would feel if you ended up causing the gun to go off because you foolishly chose a weapon and carry method unfamiliar to the officer.Wha wha wha WHAAAAT? :what:

Since when do you have to carry a gun considering how easily an officer (or PERP) could disarm you??

I guess you don't like the SmartCarry product either, do you??

I'm guessing that one gun is a primary and the pocket is the backup gun.

Something else that calls into question the judgement of this officer is the fact that he was sticking his hands into the pockets of a female on a quiet street with presumably no witnesses to maintain that he did nothing inappropriate. In these days of lawsuits, if I were him I'd NEVER stick my hands anywhere NEAR a woman's nether regions like that unless I had good cause to fear for my safety.

A CCW-permitted woman is NOT good cause to fear for your safety.

pinblaster
July 8, 2004, 06:56 PM
I apologize for giving bad advice, I was not aware that in some states you had to show your permit without being asked to do so by the cop. I stand corrected.

Correia
July 8, 2004, 07:02 PM
madcowburger, I guess it depends on where you are. Luckily around these parts I can say in all honesty that the vast majority of the cops are in fact on our side. I can't vouch for other places of course. Most of the really stupid incidents that have occured here during traffic stops have been the results of misinformation or lack of training.

Stick it to them Tam. Write letters and publish your article. That is how policy gets changed.

Diggler
July 8, 2004, 07:07 PM
a few months ago. Here in PA, you don't have to notify. I didn't. It went smoothly, it was at 4:30 IWB under my shirt on my right, and he never knew. No harm no foul. He actually cut me a break so I wouldn't get points... I like to think it's because of my Bush/Cheney sticker on the back.

If it's legal, don't ask don't tell. If you had a case of beer in the trunk, even though you weren't drinking, would you tell him?

GigaBuist
July 8, 2004, 07:09 PM
Heh, you don't have to show the permit (maybe you do)-- you've got to verbally warn them ASAP that you've got a weapon on you. Seems like it'd be awfully hard to handle if you don't have any tact.

Officer: Evening. Know how fast you were going?
CCW Holder (with hands on wheel): I GOT A GUN!! Yeah, I was doing 15 over.

Double Naught Spy
July 8, 2004, 07:10 PM
Tam,
As noted, you have no grounds for a complaint against the officer who stopped you, at least not in regard to your CHL issues. It does NOT matter one iota if disarming a middle aged-female is standard procedure or not. First of all, your sex and age mean nothing in that equation. Being 5'3" means nothing either. You were armed and guns are a great equalizer - no doubt part of the reason you carry.

As you should have learned in your CHL class and read in your Handbook, LEOs have the right to disarm you during such events as a traffic stop. So what's the problem.

So the officer laid your guns out on your seat, out in the open and not concealed. At that moment, you were NOT violating the law any more so than if the officer had asked you to take your gun out slowly, lay it on the dash, and exit the vehicle (something that happened during a friend's stop). During that time, you are under the direction of the officer making the stop. Exposing your carry weapon as directed by him is not illegal.

What did you do to deserve the treatment you received? Simple. First you were speeding. Second, you were carrying a gun, legally, but the officer was not comfortable dealing with you armed. It is his call, not yours, to take your gun. What he did was not improper. If you were not aware that this could happen to you, then go chew out your CHL instructor for not adequately preparing you.

And to think that all this could have been avoided had you either not been speeding or been observant enough to spot the radar jockey before he spotted you. Sad but true.

Drizzt
July 8, 2004, 07:12 PM
That is DEFINITELY not SOP. Let me repost a story I told on TFL:

An interesting story

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just wanted to pass along a story which was told to me the other evening. I was speaking with one of the board members for SAS (Second Amendment Sisters) the other evening, she told about an incident she'd had. Let me preface this by describing this person, she immediately strikes you as a sweet little grandmother, not as a "pistol-packin' mama", and is an extremely fun person to talk to. Anyhow, some of the other board members were down here visiting, and they decided they wanted to go to the range. On the way back, they were stopped for speeding in Lakeway. Of course, in TX, the first thing a CHL holder is required to tell the officer is that they are carrying a firearm. The officer was ok, until he asked where the pistol was. She pointed out that there was 1 in her purse, 1 in the console, and 1 in the glove compartment. Ok, no problem so far.... Then the little old lady in the passenger seat speaks up "Oh, and I've got 2 guns with me as well." The officer probably scratched his head.... Then from the back seat, "And officer, we've got 4 more guns back here." Then, after being told of the approx 2000 rounds of ammo in the trunk, the officer decided he didn't want to hear anything else, and went back to his cruiser to run the standard checks. When he walks back to the car, writing in his book, one of the other ladies asks him not to give the driver a ticket. The officer laughed and said that he would only give her a warning, because they had definitely just made his day.

I asked her if she had seen that officer since then, and she said she still sees him occasionally on patrol, and he just smiles and waves..... and probably swears to never pull her car over again .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This was right outside of Austin. I know several officers in the area, and none of them would consider this as SOP either.

Michigander
July 8, 2004, 07:34 PM
So, the first time I was accosted by the police while out walking on a sunny Sunday afternoon and while "legally"(?) armed with a concealed pistol, I didn't mention the fact that I was a permit holder or that I was armed when they started barking demands for some "I.D" at me. I just leaned on my walking stick and handed them a driver's license.

madcowburger,

Would you mind sharing what "pretense" the police used to harrass you?

Cosmoline
July 8, 2004, 08:11 PM
E. Holt--sorry but I don't choose my CCW piece based on how easy it is for someone to reach in and pull it out safely :D In traffic stops I simply toss the piece in the glove box before stopping and there are no problems. Other than the size of the #%@@ ticket that is.

HankB
July 8, 2004, 08:17 PM
Tam, I would strongly suggest you write a letter to the officer's superior, and maybe his superior's superior, stressing that you were striving to comply with the law as regards your CHL, and that you peacefully submitted to being disarmed as the law requires . . . but this very large male officer was obviously enjoying his hand in your front pocket entirely too much for your comfort. You do feel violated, don't you?

I'd forget about mentioning your age or size - just mention your gender and the male officer's lingering, active hand in your pants. (pocket.)

And making you drive off with a loaded gun laying loosely on your front seat was just plain unsafe - suppose you had to make a sudden stop? Suppose you stopped for a stop sign and someone saw it, before you had a chance to conceal it? Suppose someone saw you tucking it away? It was OK while the officer was there, but directing you to drive away with it still on the seat wasn't the best thing to do.

Austin politicians are very sensitive to any lack of sensitivity, diversity issues, etc., and if someone takes the time to write a thoughtful, well-reasoned letter, well, perhaps this officer will have a little attitude adjustment which will temper his and his colleagues' behavior in the future.

Michigander
July 8, 2004, 09:58 PM
Austin politicians are very sensitive to any lack of sensitivity, diversity issues, etc., and if someone takes the time to write a thoughtful, well-reasoned letter, well, perhaps this officer will have a little attitude adjustment which will temper his and his colleagues' behavior in the future.
Of course this could mean that next time you will have to wait 30 minutes for a female officer to arrive to disarm you all the while you lean against your vehicle. :rolleyes:

chas_martel
July 8, 2004, 10:06 PM
Tam,

I think what happened to you is pathetic. There was no cause for him to disarm you.

Let me say up front, I am a CHL instructor in the great state of Texas, and the following is my
"opinion" on how to handle a traffic stop. Simply hand the officer your drivers license, CHL
and any insurance papers. Say nothing about being armed unless directly asked. I can think
of no place in the law where you are "required" to state that you are armed. The rule is that
you must present your CHL along with drivers license/ID if asked for ID by the police AND you are armed.

I know this is a very fine distinction, but I think it is an important one which takes the officers
attention off your being armed.

The above being said, I side with educating the young "pansy" cop about proper etiquete. That was no way to treat a lady. You should most definantly send a letter to his superiors. This guy will go on to be an anti of the highest degree. And he will be one wearing a badge. Sorry, I know some of you will interpret this as cop bashing, but it is far from that. This person is a human just like the rest of us. He should get no "free
ride" just because he wears a badge.

Good luck!

Ellery Holt
July 8, 2004, 10:19 PM
Oops, I forgot my sarcasm smiliey. :D Sorry folks. No, I don't really believe that kind of hogwildalaskawash.

Hawkmoon
July 8, 2004, 11:14 PM
Why? What threat is a law abiding CCW holder? If the person was a felon, they wouldn't have a CCW permit. We have a right to keep and bear arms, yet we are sometimes treated like a criminal for doing so, even after jumping through the hoops of permit processes.
Dunno about your part of the country, but in my part of the country a lot of LEO shootings grow out of traffic stops. A LOT. CCW or not, I am not surprised that an officer would want to disarm a person known to be carrying a handgun. Yeah, if the person has a CCW there's a basic presumption that he/she is more law-abiding than the typical gang banger, but law-abiding folks have temper tantrums, too.

Hawkmoon
July 8, 2004, 11:16 PM
If they don't ask if you are armed don't tell them you are. If they don't ask for your carry permit don't give it to them.
Potentially very bad advice.

Many states (I would venture to say "most") require that a CCW holder who is carrying must notify an LEO of that fact if stopped.

Go to www.packing.org and review the laws for your state. This is one of the items that Packing.org specifically addresses for every state.

Michigander
July 8, 2004, 11:36 PM
Yeah, if the person has a CCW there's a basic presumption that he/she is more law-abiding than the typical gang banger, but law-abiding folks have temper tantrums, too.
So what are the statistics as to how many LEO's have been shot by law-abiding folks with a CCW/CHL?

feedthehogs
July 8, 2004, 11:42 PM
There are two sides to this story and both are valid.

Not only does the officer want to feel safe but so does the driver.

Yes drivers get irrate over tickets. Who me? That lite was yellow when I went thru, not red.

Its a citizens right to feel safe also. That's what the permits for. It works both ways.

I think attitude goes a long way to making this a good or bad experience.
The cop as reported seemed to have a poor one and made it worse by fumbling around in her pocket.
A lady cop should have been called or a least a matron.

It would seem to me this would border on sexual harassment.

My nephew who is an officer has to call a female cop every time a female is stopped and has to be searched. Even though he was told where the gun was, it was still a search.

As my nephew says, everyone has bad days and takes it out on someone else at times. But he has to be extra careful not to do it while on duty. When he can't do that anymore, he's gonna quit.

He also supports peoples right to carry but supports some type of training to do so which is right. He also says alot of cops are way under trained when it come to dealing with people.

F4GIB
July 8, 2004, 11:50 PM
Ah, a motorcycle cop. That job seems to attract officers with "attitude" problems. Write the Chief. He or she needs to know that citizens are aware of the impact officer's conduct has on good citizens. The police department needs to retain the goodwill of the good citizens even if individual officers don't care (as illustrated by some LEO posts on THR).

one45auto
July 8, 2004, 11:53 PM
I'm with Matt Payne on this one, because even though I have a healthy respect for our police it still raises the hair on the back of my neck (not to mention my blood pressure) when they start that arrogant "deal with it" attitude as though they are above reproach. :fire:

CentralTexas
July 9, 2004, 12:17 AM
Andy Griffith Sheriff of Mayberry cops of yesterday. I bet they also miss the polite civil society they used to pull over also.
This guy was within his rights but out of line anyway...
CT

cropcirclewalker
July 9, 2004, 01:30 AM
What did you do to deserve the treatment you received? Simple. First you were speeding. Second, you were carrying a gun, legally, but the officer was not comfortable dealing with you armed. It is his call, not yours, to take your gun. What he did was not improper. Sorry, this cop was (wrong).

How about us citizens, the employers of these nervous officers, who may be uncomfortable with some shaved head big dude with a badge who is ALSO legally armed and, (for his safety with a 5'-3" middle aged woman, who is trying as hard as possible to be polite to this guy) acts uncomfortable?

Uncomfortable with a middle aged, 5'-3" polite woman?

This (guy) is in the wrong line of work. He needs to be in aroma therapy.

deej
July 9, 2004, 01:30 AM
Personally, I'd feel a lot safer if the cops disarmed themselves when dealing with me.

madcowburger
July 9, 2004, 01:36 AM
Michigander,

I don't know anything about any "pretense," but the *pretext* (excuse) was that they'd received an anonymous phone tip about a man with a crowbar (my cane, apparently) "peering" into the display windows of some furniture stores, which were closed for Sunday.

In fact I had passed down a street with several furniture stores a block or two back, before I was stopped and warrant-checked. Whether they were open for business or closed, I had no idea and less interest at the time, as I was merely passing by, and was not shopping for any furniture.

Besides, if merchants do not wish passers-by to look at their wares, why do they display them in their windows? I suppose it's possible that I might have glanced at my reflection in a store window as I limped past, but I wasn't window shopping, much less "casing the joint" prior to trying to break in and steal a sofa.

That was basically it. I was detained about 40-45 minutes waiting on the warrant check, but was not searched or "proned out" or otherwise manhandled. I wasn't particularly nervous at first, since I didn't think I was doing anything wrong, but when the whole warrant check business got started, and when it took so long, I started to *get* nervous, thinking some mistake might be made. (I have been on the wrong end of some "mistaken identity" hassles before, and my real last name is almost always misspelled and mispronounced by everyone, unless I make a big deal of spelling it and sounding it out for them.)

Finally I was allowed to go on my way, but the experience had rattled me to the point that when I got home I hardly knew what I was doing, and inadvertantly locked my car keys *and* house keys inside my car. My next door neighbors left their football game on TV to spend almost two hours helping me "break in" my own car with a coat hanger. Strangely enough, no one with a cell phone growing out of his or her head turned that in as "suspicious."

MCB

Zundfolge
July 9, 2004, 01:54 AM
Yeah, if the person has a CCW there's a basic presumption that he/she is more law-abiding than the typical gang banger, but law-abiding folks have temper tantrums, too.

IIRC there was a study released in the state of Texas that concluded that CCW holders are more law abiding then the police (if anyone has a link please post it).

If they don't disarm fellow police officers during a traffic stop there's no reason they should be disarming CCW holders.

Its unsafe. Its counter productive to community relations. Its unnecessary.

one45auto
July 9, 2004, 06:22 AM
Yeah, if the person has a CCW there's a basic presumption that he/she is more law-abiding than the typical gang banger, but law-abiding folks have temper tantrums, too.

Are you sure you're on the right board? That sounds like something Sarah Brady would say! If you follow that logic then perhaps police officers should also be disarmed during traffic stops, because what's to prevent them from going bonkers and blowing away an innocent civilian? They're human too and have gone nuts from time to time, right? Or are you arguing that the presence of both the uniform and badge somehow magically transforms them into omnipotent demigods incapable of flaws?

Look, let's break this down. A police officer is simply a person who gets paid to carry a gun during his shift and is authorized to use it against his fellow man in the course of his or her duties if need be - nothing more. Regardless of what your own views may be, in the end that makes them no better, no more trustworthy, no more knowledgeable, and certainly no less human than the rest of us. To somehow elevate them above the general public simply because of their profession is a mistake.

It sounds to me as if that police officer distrusts anyone who isn't a cop, and I've heard it said before that after a few years on the job some officers come to believe that there are three kinds of people - cops, cops families, and everyone else. This individual clearly seems to be leaning in that direction, given the fact that the mere presence of a firearm in the hands of an ordinary citizen caused him to fear for his safety to the point where he felt he needed to disarm her. That's an irrational fear, bordering on paranoia, and as others here have said it is more worthy of the anti-gun crowd than an officer of the law. Quite frankly if it were me, I'd be filing a formal complaint with the local chief of police so fast that the officer would be called into the proverbial principal's office the moment he finished his shift.

juggler
July 9, 2004, 09:43 AM
Thanks Hawkmoon, I forgot about that link. The section for my state is a little out of date, but I had recently searched the latest publication and it seems to have not changed.
Unless they ask me to leave the vehicle I've decided not to mention it. Be polite and keep your hands in sight.....common courtesy.

DBK
July 9, 2004, 11:00 AM
All those who were present, raise their hand....hmm so what really did happen on this traffic stop?

My point is, we are only getting one (hostile at that) side.

another okie
July 9, 2004, 11:31 AM
The officer might have been within his rights, but as far as doing it for "officer safety-" that makes me laugh. One of the most dangerous moments in gun handling is taking it out of or putting it back in a holster, especially if you are unfamiliar with the gun. He was in far greater danger pulling a gun out of someone else's pocket than from a CCW holder.

I do sometimes carry my Glock without one in the chamber partly for this reason, though in Oklahoma we now have a law that says that a CCW holder with a gun is not ground to disarm them. The law is not everything you could ask for, but it's progress.

Oh, and don't say "I have a gun." A stressed out cop might freak out on that. Say "I have license to carry and I have it on me" or something like that. Avoid the word "gun."

another okie
July 9, 2004, 11:34 AM
The officer might have been within his rights, but as far as doing it for "officer safety-" that makes me laugh. One of the most dangerous moments in gun handling is taking it out of or putting it back in a holster, especially if you are unfamiliar with the gun. He was in far greater danger pulling a gun out of someone else's pocket than from a CCW holder.

I do sometimes carry my Glock without one in the chamber partly for this reason, though in Oklahoma we now have a law that says that a CCW holder with a gun is not grounds to disarm them. The law is not everything you could ask for, but it's progress.

Oh, and don't say "I have a gun." A stressed out cop might freak out on that. Say "I have license to carry and I have it on me" or something like that. Avoid the word "gun."

You could also avoid speeding. I'm amazed how many people post about being pulled over while carrying for speeding. Obey the law. The speed limit is the law. If you are carrying a gun you have a higher duty than ever to obey the law. Slow down! Speeding shows a lack of discipline and a real self-centered quality that is most unattractive in a gun toter.

R.H. Lee
July 9, 2004, 02:33 PM
My point is, we are only getting one (hostile at that) side.


If you thought the original post was hostile, apparently you're not acquainted with hostility.

TamThompson
July 9, 2004, 02:59 PM
OK, one at a time:

Ellery--glad you posted that you were just pulling my leg. :)

Chas_martel: thanks! It's been awhile since my CHL class. I had heard it suggested that you tell the officer you are legally armed, but on your advice I think I'll not say that again.

Zundfolge--if you google Texas Department of Public Safety, go to the CHL page, then click on demographics. Yes, we do have a much lower crime rate except for (oddly enough) stalking and child molestation.

AnotherOkie--have you ever driven in Austin? Drive the speed limit and you'll get run over. I know, I know--no excuse. I was speeding, I admit it, and I will pay the consequences. BUT--that's no excuse to treat me like a criminal.

DBK--go back and read my post. I'm a professional, full-time writer, and I like to think my writing is objective. I always strive to be fair. Heck, I admitted I was speeding!! As far as being hostile to the cops: yeah, right, that's why I go drink beer with them when the gun shop closes, and why I take gun classes taught by them, and why I'd back one of 'em up if they needed citizen help.

I realize there's three sides to every story: she said, he said, and what really happened. But I have tried to be objective, and if you read my post, I certainly didn't name-call or try to run down the officer.

As to my carry method: I believe in carrying a back-up gun, particularly since my primary is a semi-auto, and thus, could jam. (Glock 30.) My back-up used to be a Keltec .32, but I was uncomfortable with the slightly anemic caliber and with backing up a semi-auto with another semi-auto, so my new carry gun (that the cop took out of my pocket) is an S&W Airweight 637 revolver, .38+p. It was in a leather Galco pocket holster that covered the trigger guard. When the cop went to pull it out of my pocket, I said, "That gun is loaded," just so he would know.

Yes, I'm sure I was very scary in my bathing suit, shorts, and Hawaiian shirt and my Teva sandals, with my hair in a pony tail still wet from swimming in Barton Springs, and my hands up on top of the steering wheel. <sarcasm mode off>

Drizzt
July 9, 2004, 04:34 PM
Tam, let's face it. Police here in Austin aren't quite like you would find in other more 'civilized' portions of the state. Fortunately, I don't have to ever drive very far, unless I choose to. I have Red's just 2 blocks away, and work is less than 10 minutes drive.

auschip
July 9, 2004, 06:47 PM
with my hair in a pony tail still wet from swimming in Barton Springs

Hippy! Just kidding, I had a somewhat similar experience out near my house (Bee Caves Road). Sunday afternoon, my father in law & I were running up to get some BBQ and he was doing somewhere around 12 over. The Sheriff's Deputy caught him. Nice guy, but when he asked if we were armed (he gave him the CHL along with DL) FIL said yes, he asked where and it was in the center console. The SD didn't disarm him, but he asked us to put our hands on the dash and he put his hand on his firearm. He went back to the cruiser wrote the ticket and sent us on our way.

After we were driving away my FIL (a lawyer) asked me how many times I thought an officer had been assaulted by a fat, late 50's lawyer in a $60k vehicle in Westlake.

Zundfolge
July 9, 2004, 07:02 PM
Zundfolge--if you google Texas Department of Public Safety, go to the CHL page, then click on demographics. Yes, we do have a much lower crime rate except for (oddly enough) stalking and child molestation.


For those who are interested ... here's the page in question

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/chlsindex.htm

Although I don't find anything that compares crime rates of license holders with police officers

The Real Hawkeye
July 9, 2004, 07:05 PM
This is not Iraq. I'm not an Iraqi, and I'll bet Tam is not either, nor are most permit holders. The police don't need to be acting like an occupying army, and we don't need to be treated like occupied Iraqis.

MCBVery well said. Increasingly, the police are adopting the attitude and methods, when dealing with Americans, of an occupying army in a conquered land. It is only natural that they should be like that, however, considering how our rights are being steadily eroded by the courts. The courts are telling them, more and more, that we are a lower class of citizen, and cops are a higher class of citizen.

If anyone has ever studied the history of Japan, you will find a parallel in the status of the Samurai versus anyone else, excluding, of course, members of the royal family (who seem to parallel public office holders in our nation in this regard). Unless you were a member of the royal family, or another samurai, you had to behave quite obsequiously towards the samurai (e.g., never looking them in the eye) when forced to deal with them, or they could beat you, or kill you, at their discretion. We are not that far from this, folks, and it's getting worse every year.

spartacus2002
July 9, 2004, 07:29 PM
I find myself in agreement with The Real Hawkeye.

My copy of the Constitution doesn't have an "Officer Safety" clause that overrides the Bill of RIghts, but SCOTUS' copy sure seems to have one....

M2HMGHB
July 9, 2004, 09:02 PM
This was also posted on glocktalk as this thread: http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=264094


Quite frankly the amount of cop bashing on here gets iritating at times.
Have any of you known what it feels like to deal with this crud? Quite frankly the lady in question put everyone at risk by speeding, forcing the officer to pull her over, forcing him to exit the car on a street etc....

Yes police officers do get grouchy, but I have a question, do YOU also not get grouchy at times? Do you get yelled at harrangued harrassed etc when you're trying to do your job? Come on people think for a minuete, NYC garbage men make more money starting the NYC cops.

I thought this was supposed to be The High Road, not "let's call all cops names and all citizens with CCW permits dont commit crime" By speeding the person in question was showing how immature she was.

I do agree the officer acted improperly by thrusting the radar detector into the car, but I have no opinion on him reaching to disarm her. Over the year's I've learned that sometimes officers have good reasons for what they do concerning weapons.

O.F.Fascist
July 9, 2004, 09:34 PM
Quite frankly the lady in question put everyone at risk by speeding, forcing the officer to pull her over, forcing him to exit the car on a street etc....

No the lady did not put everyone at risk, the law put people at risk.

I was pulled over for going 83 on a 65. The act of getting pulled over and then getting back on the road was far more dangerous than my speeding.

Most speeding laws are stupid, they have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with making money.

HankB
July 9, 2004, 09:50 PM
the lady in question put everyone at risk by speeding, forcing the officer to pull her over, forcing him to exit the car on a street etc.... Firstly, the purpose of many of the speed limits around the Austin area can be summed up in two words: revenue enhancement. Without knowing the situation, we can't actually say what she did was unsafe.

Secondly, she didn't force the cop to do anything. If she had the power to force Officer Gropeatelli to do anything, I strongly suspect she would have forced him to leave her alone . . . or at least not to cop a feel (Hmmm . . . I wonder where that term actually came from. Seems singularly appropriate here.)

Thirdly . . . it seems we have a number of THR folks around the Austin area. Maybe we should have a group shoot sometime.

M2HMGHB
July 9, 2004, 09:58 PM
What I was saying is that if she hadnt been speeding she would never have been pulled over. I know of not one cop who bother's pulling someone over for 5mph over the limit, some if not most would pull people for 10 and all for anything more then 10. She took her chance by speeding and got caught. I agree the officer was wrong but if she hadnt been speeding it would not have happened.

R.H. Lee
July 9, 2004, 10:22 PM
Most speeding laws are stupid, they have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with making money.

Exactly.

And btw, M2HMGHB, Officer Gropeatelli needed a RADAR GUN to even determine she was speeding, so obviously she was not driving erratically.

deej
July 9, 2004, 10:26 PM
And if they were REALLY worried about "officer safety", they'd just use photo radar and MAIL her the ticket.

JohnKSa
July 9, 2004, 10:42 PM
It's not SOP to disarm a CHL, but the officer may at his discretion.

I sure hope that doesn't happen to me.

Sometimes I carry in a bellyband below the belt in front. Not only do I not want an officer to go exploring in my pants, I imagine it would be pretty hard to draw from that location if you're not ME. It's also virtually impossible to reholster without undressing about half way.

AND, I carry a PPK with the safety off. The DA trigger pull is plenty stiff to prevent an ND, but the idea of someone groping around blind in my pants for an off safe pistol doesn't make me smile...

From this and other stories, it sounds like sooner or later an officer is going to accidentally shoot a CHL while doing an unnecessary "discretional" disarm.

JPM70535
July 9, 2004, 10:52 PM
Having spent in excess of 20 years as a LEO both as a State Trooper and a Florida Deputy Sheriff, I encountered numerous traffic violators who were armed legally (and a few who were not). My response to the legally armed citizens was always to inquire as to where the weapon was being carried. I asked that the individual refrain from reaching for that area of his person, and continued the traffic stop. My feeling was that it was far safer to avoid handling the weapon as long as the motorist remained non threatening.

I would have perfectly justified in separating the motorist from his weapon during the traffic stop based on Officer safety, and there were times when I did temporarily disarm individuals who displayed hostility or agression.
In those instances it made no difference whether the motorist was Male or female, they got patted down and disarmed. However with these few exceptions I always reasoned that a legally armed citizen was not a threat to mysafety. I do not take issuue with any Officer who feels differently however, since his threat level redline may be cosiderably lowr tha mine.

R.H. Lee
July 9, 2004, 11:08 PM
So, if you happen to be armed, but don't have the 'permission slip' (CCW), there is no duty to tell the nice officer that you're carrying.

O.F.Fascist
July 9, 2004, 11:27 PM
So, if you happen to be armed, but don't have the 'permission slip' (CCW), there is no duty to tell the nice officer that you're carrying.

Well other than the fact that the concealed carry law says you have to inform the officer about your firearm there arent many laws that say you have to tell the police officer anything.

So if you dont have a concealed carry license then you dont have to answer the officer's question.

It would probably make the stop not go as smoothly as it should but unless there is a law that says you have to something, then you dont.

Diggler
July 9, 2004, 11:31 PM
Good to see a voice of reason from a veteran LEO. It's good to see that you treat people with respect and logic.

Thanks for your respectful service.

WeThree
July 10, 2004, 12:49 AM
I was pulled over on JTB here in Jacksonville, FL by a highway patrol officer.

Turns out my license AND tag were expired.. I was out of town for a few weeks and had a birthday. Stupid I know, but hey, it happens.

I pulled well of the roadway, shutoff my car, etc. He approached my right side and asked for my papers, which I had ready. I informed him I was a CWP holder and was carrying. (IWB on my right side).

He looked over my license/cwp/registration/insurance and had me step out... we went around the back of the car, he disarmed me, unloaded the weapon, ran my license, my cwp, and the gun's serial number. Said it was standard procedure to run the serials on any gun they handle.

How insane would I be to spend all the time and money getting a CWP, and then go buy a stolen gun to carry?!

Anyway, he placed my gun, magazine, and formerly chambered round on the front seat of my car. Gave me back my papers, told me to take care of it first thing monday. Said he appreciated that I was up front with him and that I let him know about the weapon.

I had mixed feelings... on one hand I felt like I was treated a bit like a criminal, on the other hand, I think he let me go on about $100 worth of tickets.

I've had good and bad experiences with the police, this one was kind of neutral.

cropcirclewalker
July 10, 2004, 01:16 AM
This guy, officer Gropatelli, should be the butt of jokes at the cop shop.

Big, strong, shaved head, Jesse Ventura like, getting all "Nervous", sorry, "uncomfortable" about a middle aged, 5'-3" polite babe with a shootin' iron.

Bad cop, no donut!

This thing about disarming law abiding citizens is way wrong. Somehow, some LEOs have gotten the mistaken impression that;
1) If you have a gun and
2) You are not a cop, then
3) You are a criminal.

Wrong!

Sorry, Mr. Sendec, but I have to tell another story about dumb cops.....

I was headed east inbound toward Paducah on US 60 and encountered a soberiety check in Kevil Ky in like 1996. This is the very first time that I was open carrying in my car and encountered a LEO. As I slowly approached the cops, (like in a line of maybe 3 cars ahead of me) I thunk, "what should I do? I could throw my jacket over my 1911 on the seat and try to slide by, (which I considered to be a risky behaviour, since I could be caught with a "concealed" weapon (which was, at the time a felony for me in MO)) or, I could just leave it on the seat and take my chances. I knew that Kentucky was an open carry state.

I wisely chose to just leave it on the seat in plain view.

When I pulled up to the nice, young, cop (Kevil, KY, local), he shined his maglight onto my piece and said, unbelievably, "Is that your weapon?"

I was scared ******le$$. I knew that I was gonna be in orange coveralls. He was asking a stupid question. I was the only occupant of the auto. I should have bitch slapped him and said "No, you dumb sumbitch, it's the other guy's", but, like I said I was scared ******le$$, so I said, "Yes, Sir".

He said, "In the future, sir, you should notify the officer as soon as possible that you are armed and if the officer requests, you should be prepared to hand your weapon over. by the barrell, to him so that he will not be (I can't remember whether he said "nervous, concerned, or whatever). I said, in the previously mentioned condition, "Yes, sir"

He didn't ask for my piece. If he had, I am afraid I would have had to respond, "I am sorry, sir, but I am unwilling to handle my weapon in your presence. I will, at your direction, exit my car, so that you may do what you need to do, but I will not touch my weapon in your prescence and I will not voluntarily surrender my weapon to you."

So he looked at my DL and said, "Ok, thanks, have a good evening" and I was on my way.

I was exstatic. I had just been in personal contact with a LEO, armed, and had not been arrested. Of course, I knew that no serious 2a proponent would voluntarily surrender their piece, but I further reasoned that the "instructions" that he had given me were pure BS.

If you get nothing else from my ramblin' post, PLEASE, do not handle your weapon in the prescence of LEOs. It is an accident waiting to happen. Otherwise. if you give your piece to them, they can claim that you voluntarily disarmed yourself. Never allow it. Make them do it to you without your permission.

I had been immunized. I knew then that the citizen was "allowed" to keep and bear arms. I have encountered several LEOs since then and with one exception, (In St. Louis, Mr. Sendec, I know you're reading this) no LEO has felt the need to make an issue out of my open carry.

Finally, Mr. HankB, you get to use the "cop a feel" terminology without raising the shackles of some of the more coplike apoligists on this forum. I feel discriminated against. :D

Ellery Holt
July 10, 2004, 02:39 AM
The Real Hawkeye writes:

Increasingly, the police are adopting the attitude and methods, when dealing with Americans, of an occupying army in a conquered land.

Who's often quoted with a statement like this, only going further and stating something about, "and if they behave that way we'll play our role too."

What strikes me is that even though there can be chicken and egg arguements made about that, the courts should squash it all -- punishments for JBT; an end to the war on drugs; and longer prision for street thugs.

firearms_instructor
July 10, 2004, 03:37 AM
"You could also avoid speeding." For your information, ladies and gentlemen, in the great (Officer Gropeatelli notwithstanding) state of Texas, speed limits are prima facie , not absolute. At least they were when I lived there. So the posted speed limit is prima facie evidence of a reasonable speed under average conditions. However, if every one else is going ten miles above the speed limit, it would not necessarily be reasonable or safe to go the speed limit. And having grown up in Texas I know that many municipalities use the speed limits for revenue enhancement. We'll never know if the other drivers were really endangered or not.

That having been said, I think it was incredibly stupid of said officer to stick his hand into Tam's pocket and rummage around for a pistol he has never seen. This stunt would've earned the deputy's supervisor a letter from me.

RevDisk
July 10, 2004, 04:15 AM
Quite frankly the amount of cop bashing on here gets iritating at times. Have any of you known what it feels like to deal with this crud? Quite frankly the lady in question put everyone at risk by speeding, forcing the officer to pull her over, forcing him to exit the car on a street etc....

Yes police officers do get grouchy, but I have a question, do YOU also not get grouchy at times? Do you get yelled at harrangued harrassed etc when you're trying to do your job? Come on people think for a minuete, NYC garbage men make more money starting the NYC cops.

I thought this was supposed to be The High Road, not "let's call all cops names and all citizens with CCW permits dont commit crime" By speeding the person in question was showing how immature she was.

I do agree the officer acted improperly by thrusting the radar detector into the car, but I have no opinion on him reaching to disarm her. Over the year's I've learned that sometimes officers have good reasons for what they do concerning weapons.


"Sorry sir, I accidently shot so and so, but dang it I was really grouchy at the time" Where I work, this is not a valid excuse. I'm sure everyone is happy that this incident ended without anyone getting shot accidently. Accidents happen, and are investigated. But part of being a professional is a level of emotiona detachment. If one gets grouchy on the job and it deeply affects one's performance, perhaps working with firearms for a living is not the right job.

I've worked with stopping smugglers carrying more than just pistols. I knew the risks, and I like to think I always maintained a proper level of decorum when I was on the job. Did I want to strangle someone time to time? Of course!

I have no opinion over the speeding. I do have an opinion with unsafe weapons practices. In such a circumstance, I think it would be best to cooperate fully with said police officer but if possible danger of a ND I'd be quick to point it out.

For some odd reason, I have a real aversion of a ND happening inside the confines of my pants. :neener:


Writing the the chief of police or said cop's supervisor to meantion possible unsafe practices is a wise idea. Can any LEO say they do not want ANY feedback on possible unsafe procedures? Shooting a law abidding civilian by accident is a rather bad thing in my opinion. Any safety concerns that are reasonably prudent should be looked at carefully, for cops or civilians.

Sorry, in my opinion, the lives of law abidding citizens are just as important as police officers. Moreso, if you consider that joining the PD means possibly getting injured or killed to protect said citizens. It's part of the job that police should understand when they join. Not something one likes considering, but it is.


(For the record, I am not a LEO but I have worked as a soldier in doing civilian-military operations. Think of it as playing cop with bigger weapons and funny looking uniforms. It's not the same thing, but I can see a few parallels.)

DBK
July 10, 2004, 07:58 AM
Since we only have your side of the traffic stop, we'll NEVER know what happened....

Diggler
July 10, 2004, 09:44 AM
Since we only have your side of the traffic stop, we'll NEVER know what happened....I don't think it's necessary to accuse someone of lying without any basis for it.

On another note, how about this. As soon as you get your vehicle to a stop, and before he gets out of the patrol car, you and all your buddies hold your firearms out the windows by the bottom of the grip, between your thumb and index finger. Drop them on the pavement. Stick your hands out the windows, and yell "Don't shooooot, we're a-comin' out!" Open the doors slowly, keep your hands well in the air, and lay face down on the pavement with your hands out and your ankles crossed. If needed, he could hog-tie you (for safety).

:neener:

HankB
July 10, 2004, 11:37 AM
M2HMGHB: I know of not one cop who bother's pulling someone over for 5mph over the limit, Lucky you. I was on a jury in traffic court a couple of years ago where a guy was ticketed for going 5mph over the limit.

But he wasn't groped, just ticketed. :rolleyes:

El Tejon
July 10, 2004, 12:04 PM
I've never enountered this kind of behavior (Oh, no! A gun!) on the part of the police. However, I have lived a majority of my life in a very pro-CCW place where carrying a gun is just part of life and not a big deal.

My guess is that the po-po in Tejas will chill out over the years as they realize that the law-abiding citizens are not the problem. I see a huge shift in attitudes (from anti to pro) since I have been going down to Tejas with the no carry zones. I'd wager the "disarm provision" of Texas law becomes less used as the state slowly transforms into a gun friendly culture.

Barbara
July 10, 2004, 01:01 PM
The only time I've been stopped by the police since having a CPL was in Ohio right after their CCW law went into effect. As we didn't have reciprocity at the time, I wasn't carrying, but notified the officer right away. He smiled and said that was a good, but he didn't need to see my permit. After stories of the highway patrol searching vehicles, etc. I was sure relieved. I wasn't even late for work. :)

Barbara
July 10, 2004, 01:07 PM
Hey, the only ticket I've ever gotten was for going 5 mph over. He cut me a break, though. I was actually going 9 mph over the limit. :rolleyes:

Patent Works
July 10, 2004, 02:13 PM
CCW or not, I am not surprised that an officer would want to disarm a person known to be carrying a handgun.
Has there EVER, in the history of mankind, been an instance in which a cop was harmed in a traffic stop by a CCW holder's gun? EVER? Even once?

If not, then there is no rational basis for disarming a CCW holder after seeing the permit.

madcowburger
July 10, 2004, 04:07 PM
PatentWorks,

Not one that know of.

If a cop knows an American has a permit, and knows that no "law" is being broken by the American being armed, then how is an American being armed even a police matter at all?

What's up with this weird insistence on "running the serial number to see if it's stolen" jazz? What's up with all this inexpert fiddling and fumbling with loaded guns, and with loaded guns changing hands? What's "safe" about that? *Whose* safety is enhanced by that? Not mine, that's for sure.

As for "just saying no" to speeding, try going 55 MPH on highways designed for 70 MPH traffic, on which everyone else is going 80-plus MPH.

5 MPH over the "speed limit" -- whoo! What a serious, scary crime! Better call out a SWAT team! Better yet, the National Guard! Shoot his tires out! Jump out in front of him and say he tried to run you over!

MCB

Cabby
July 10, 2004, 05:00 PM
Thank God the officer made it home safely to his family.:(

El Rojo
July 10, 2004, 05:06 PM
I suggest you call the department and ask if the officer can call you back. Now that the situation is over, give him feedback on how you think safety was handled on both sides. Worst case scenario is he is not cooperative at all and you can then contact his boss. Best case scenario he listens, thanks you for your input, and next time he pulls over a CHL he puts your input into practice.

Sergeant Bob
July 10, 2004, 08:39 PM
When he was groping around in your pocket for your gun you should have yelled......




















BANG!!!! :D

Zundfolge
July 10, 2004, 08:52 PM
The 4th amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures (y'all knew someone would bring this up :p ).

I think its unreasonable to disarm a law abiding citizen licensed to carry during a routine traffic stop. Just as unreasonable as trying to say speeding is probable cause to search their car.


But its for officer safety!

Bovine Scat

An officer is less likely to be shot by a citizen licensed to carry then a fellow officer and they don't feel the need to disarm their brother officers.

An officer is probably more likely to be harmed or killed by a negligent discharge from handling an unfamiliar weapon then being shot by a citizen licensed to carry.

The reason officers where given discretion to disarm CHL holders is because its one of the little concessions given to the big city police chiefs and FOP thugs to get CCW passed. Its about "keeping the sheep in their place" not officer safety.

Art Eatman
July 10, 2004, 10:49 PM
I've had casual conversations with various CHL folks pulled over for speeding. This is the first time I've heard of an officer showing concern for the location of the gun, or perceiving it to be a safety issue.

In my one experience, the DPS Trooper showed no interest beyond the law's basic requirement, and handed the CHL back to me. In a friend's experience, a rather lengthy discussion of the relative merits of various pistols ensued--twice! And much to his wife's dismay. :) (She's also a CHLer.)

Off the cuff, it sounds like an Austintatious thing...

Art

Diggler
July 10, 2004, 10:54 PM
Maybe they're just exercising their Austin powers...

:neener:

answerguy
July 10, 2004, 10:58 PM
Maybe they're just exercising their Austin powers...

Boo! Hiss!

Watchman
July 11, 2004, 12:25 AM
If a cop knows an American has a permit, and knows that no "law" is being broken by the American being armed, then how is an American being armed even a police matter at all?

It aint a "police matter".

Until you break the law, YOU aint a "police matter".


:scrutiny:


Fact of the matter is...the Police have NO jurisdiction over you until you break the law. However...the laws are numerous. Make sure you know the laws.

JohnKSa
July 11, 2004, 01:04 AM
Art,

I've had my CHL since they first became available and I drive about 25K a year and I habitually speed so I've been stopped a few times with my CHL. ;) Maybe 5 times...

Here's exactly what has happened every time.

1. Hand officer DL and CHL.
2. Officer says: "Do you have the gun now/Are you armed."
3. I reply: "Yes."
4. Officer inquires as to location of pistol.
5. I answer.
6. Officer asks that I not move suddenly toward the location of the pistol.
7. Traffic stop continues from there.

Art Eatman
July 11, 2004, 02:24 AM
Hmmm. Interesting. Out of curiosity:

Locals? Sheriff? DPS?

Age: Young? Older?

All around Texas? Or, mostly in one area?

One of my buddy's more lengthy yak-sessions was after being stopped for towing his 30' travel trailer at 85 between Fort Stockton and Odessa (the awning tears off at 100)...

:), Art

Wildalaska
July 11, 2004, 05:31 AM
Sigh...just another lets hate cops thread with gems from the usual suspects....

Of course my fav is this quote:

No, I don't really believe that kind of hogwildalaskawash.

from Mr. Ellery "I Got a Problem with Cops" Holt, far more reknowned for such gems (in all of his 26 posts) as:

I would like to remind folks that it's not fair to let the thuggish actions of 98% tarnish the image of the other 2% who are fine officers I trust.

My positive law enforcement experience?

I positively look forward to...

On second thought I better not.



I think a well intoned, "Go F--- yourself. Am I free to leave?" would be a fitting reply that recognizes my legal status as a citizen not a slave

As for the subject matter at hand, we only have one side of the story. As for me, never been disarmed yet. Cop want s to reach in me pocket and get my gun as long as he is polite about it, not gonna make a stink except to of course ensure that he is in fact following proper Departmental procedure. Thats done by mature letter to higher ups.

Of course if I was a law officer and reading all these threads, Id be inclined to disarm everybody. Never know when that supposedly law abiding "citizen" is gonna scream "Go f*ck yourself ya JBT, I aint a sheeple" and blow me away.

WildgunonwersaretheriownworstenemiesAlaska

MichaelEzekiel
July 11, 2004, 08:44 AM
The long hand that breaks our backs still casting shadows on all that we see...

pax
July 11, 2004, 01:25 PM
I got ticketed for three over once upon a time, years ago. I honestly don't know why he bothered stopping me, unless it was just a boring shift. I was going 58 on a nearly empty California freeway at 10 pm, and had a sleeping newborn baby in the car with me (who was awakened by the officer knocking loudly on the back window when he peered in with a flashlight and saw the sleeping child). No attitude on my part. I said Yes, Sir and No, Sir at the appropriate moments, but he ticketed me for three over anyway. *shrug* Maybe he'd just gotten done working a grisly accident scene and had a bug up his rear about safety. Maybe he was just a jerk. Didn't matter then, doesn't now. But yes, you can get a ticket for just a few over.

As for the rest, I've told this story before but it still makes me shake my head:

I was in the van with my buddy and a bunch of other people. Buddy was driving and I was in the front passenger seat. A broken tail light got us pulled over, and buddy handed over his CPL along with his driver's license. Cop acted like he'd never seen one before (maybe he hadn't). He wasn't hostile or unprofessional in any way, but he was clearly nervous and uncomfortable with the idea that the guy he'd stopped was armed.

Cop disarmed buddy. His prerogative, no big deal. Had buddy reach over with his left hand, using "thumb and two fingers" to pull buddy's gun (a Glock) out of its holster. Cop then carefully took gun out of buddy's hand and thanked him for it.

When the cop got possession of the gun, he proceeded to unload it -- while pointing it at me. I ducked, cop apologized. *shrug* Still no big deal. Stuff happens, and I'm still here to tell the tale. But obviously I was safer while the gun was in buddy's holster than I was with the gun in the cop's hand.

Cop relaxed very visibly once he had taken the gun. He went back to run numbers and do whatever it is they do back there.

Cop came back, explained reason for the stop, gave a verbal warning to get it fixed. Again, no biggie. He then laid buddy's gun carefully on the dash board with instructions not to touch it until the cop was back in his own car. Fair 'nuff.

Okay, now the part that has me shaking my head: the poor cop visibly relaxed after he had disarmed the only person in the vehicle for whom he had positive ID.

I guess the rest of us didn't look like we were armed. :cool:

pax

The R Hawkeye
July 11, 2004, 02:50 PM
Pax, when I try to put myself in the shoes of a cop in this situation, I just cannot seem to make any sense out of the reflex to disarm a CCW license holder. It makes about as much sense as a cop, upon discovering that the driver of the car he just pulled over is a police officer in the next county, and wanting to disarm him. CCW holders are thoroughly checked out. They are the one group that should cause a cop to breath a sigh of relief when they discover that the guy they pulled over has one. The people that should make them worry, if anyone should, are the people who do not have a CCW license. You can be a real bad dude if you don't have one. You could be an ex con, just released from serving a manslaughter sentence, for God's sake, if all you have for ID is a driver's license. I simply cannot see the reasoning that causes this to happen. If he deems that it is too dangerous to allow us to be armed, isn't it too dangerous to mess with us at all. Isn't it too dangerous for us to be able to walk among them on the streets. Isn't it too dangerous for us to walk among the general public. The legislators have determined that it is not too dangerous for us to do those things, so why does a cop get to treat us like that in a traffic stop. It makes no sense, unless their intention is to humiliate us, and thereby discourage us from renewing our CCW license next time around. For the life of me, that's the only explanation that I can think of that makes any logical sense at all.

Watchman
July 11, 2004, 04:13 PM
why does a cop get to treat us like that in a traffic stop. It makes no sense, unless their intention is to humiliate us, and thereby discourage us from renewing our CCW license next time around. For the life of me, that's the only explanation that I can think of that makes any logical sense at all.


How about this explantion ?

The cop is very unfamiliar with guns, the first one he ever shot was at the police academy. All of his life he learned that they were bad things and not to be messed with. All of a sudden, he gets issued one and he is very unfamiliar with it, not knowing any of the basic rules that go with, he is in fact scared of it.

The academy teaches him the basic rules and they harp on this constantly, never letting up. He wears his duty equipment to class and runs with and totes it all with him to the bathroom and he learns what a pain in the but it really is.

He trains with it and watches all kinds of gory film footage of cops on traffic stop that are getting killed in various ways and styles and he knows that the blood he sees leaking out on the ground and the screams he is hearing on tape are not actors playing a part, but real people jsut like him doing their job that are all of a sudden dieing for it and his hair is standing up on the back of his neck and some of his buddies may even be puking. It is a traumatic experience for him and its always in the back of his mind.

The big day comes that it is time to qualify. He might have a hard time doing it, but he will eventually pass the course. He honeslty beleives that anyone that has a gun will have the same diffuculties with it that he did, and he knows that civilians dont train like he does, so it honestly worries him when he stops someone that is carring. He is trying to be safe, and at the same time appear to be professional and courteous and he is doing the best he can because he has a lot going through his mind. At the same time he is remembering the gory films that he saw at the academy.

It nevers occurs to him that in fact the guy or gal he is stopping may be an IPSC or IDPA competitor, or a lifelong hunter, or a gun collector that owns more guns than he'll sever see in his life. It may not occure to him that you might be a CCW instructor that actually knows the law better than he does or someone that got his first shotgun when he was 8 years old.

All he knows is what he was taught. He may be a young 20 something guy or he might be a 20 year veteran that hasnt really made up his mind on CCW laws and where he stands. He might be a good old boy that has had someone jump out of car and pop a few shots at him the day before and he is still nervous. He may have just heard a message on the air about an abusive boyfriend that jus pulverized his girlfriend and you might be driving the same truck or look just like him.

The reasons are many and most folks only see what happens to them, without ever taking into account what the cop is thinking. Lest anyone thinks Im condoning any negative actions by the cops, rest assured Im not.
I do know that there is usually more to the story. It could be that the cop is an antigun sumbich that had NO buisness being a cop, but every proffesion has its idiots, its just idiot cops are more visible than the rest.

benEzra
July 11, 2004, 04:53 PM
When you get pulled over by the cops, do what you are told, speak only to answear thier questions and don't say anything else. If they don't ask if you are armed don't tell them you are. If they don't ask for your carry permit don't give it to them.
This is against the law in NC as well, and automatically gets your CCW permit revoked. BTW, in NC the CCW permit is linked to your license plate record, so the officer probably already knows you're a permit holder as soon as he runs your plates.

I had a much better experience than Tam's just a few days ago. My wife was driving and I was in the passenger seat, and my wife got pulled over by a police officer for rolling through a stop sign. Officer approaches driver's window.

Me, from passenger seat: "Excuse me, I'm required to inform you that I'm a holder of a carry permit and have a firearm with me."

Officer: "Where?"

Me: (tells where)

Officer (cheerfully): "Thanks for letting me know," and doesn't give me a second glance the rest of the stop. Requests license and registration from my wife, goes back to his car to run the check, comes back and reminds my wife about full and complete stops, gives her the license/registration back, and lets us go.

answerguy
July 11, 2004, 08:35 PM
Pax

I guess the rest of us didn't look like we were armed.

So did other people in the car have permits and were they carrying?
If so, it makes the whole disarming the driver thing kind of silly.

JohnKSa
July 11, 2004, 08:35 PM
Art,

North TX area (Dallas, Kaufman, Rockwall & Hunt Counties). All DPS.

The time I was stopped by an Oklahoma Local the routine was similar. I didn't volunteer, but when I took out my license, he noticed my CHL behind it and asked. As far as I can tell there is no obligation to volunteer the information to an LEO when out of state.

On at least one occasion the officer asked what kind of gun and when I told him, he didn't recognize the model. I asked if he would like to see it and he declined.

Art Eatman
July 11, 2004, 08:57 PM
Interesting, John. The DPS staff in Austin has been extremely helpful, fully behind the program. A CHL instructor buddy of mine has told me that all interactions have been very positive. I know I got my range approved in a heartbeat, with two DPS guys driving down from Alpine to "bless" it.

Dangfino...

Art

JohnKSa
July 11, 2004, 09:25 PM
Art,

I never considered that my experiences reflected poorly on the officers. The approach they've taken (as I described) seems very reasonable. I never felt in the least offended. More importantly, it seems quite safe.

On the other hand, I surely would object to have them trying to disarm me given my sometimes unusual carry method (belly band below the belt in front) and the fact thatt I sometimes carry guns that are likely to be unfamiliar to the average LEO. I just can't see that an officer handling one of my firearms makes either of us safer.

pax
July 11, 2004, 09:47 PM
AnswerGuy,

Every other adult in the vehicle was legally armed.

pax

The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on. -- Joseph Heller

Jester249
July 13, 2004, 11:11 AM
What I've noticed on the high road is a strong anti-LEO sentiment. Also shown through posts is the inability to see ANYTHING from a LEO stand point. Personal sensitivity and emotions would make most liberals proud!

Flame away....

auschip
July 13, 2004, 11:25 AM
What I've noticed on the high road is a strong anti-LEO sentiment. Also shown through posts is the inability to see ANYTHING from a LEO stand point. Personal sensitivity and emotions would make most liberals proud!

Flame away....



1st - Welcome to THR
2nd - You probably are right. We do have some people here who are anti-LEO.
3rd - Do you believe handling a firearm you aren't familiar with makes a person safer then leaving it where it is? I don't mean to be flippant, but how does forcing someone to handle a firearm in an admittedly stress filled time make anyone more safe?

Zundfolge
July 13, 2004, 11:30 AM
Welcome to THR Jester!

Flame away....
There will be no flaming here ... just spirited debate ;)

What I've noticed on the high road is a strong anti-LEO sentiment. Also shown through posts is the inability to see ANYTHING from a LEO stand point.
I guess I see it another way. What I've noticed here is that there are a handful of LEOs (and a handful of their sycophants) who don't believe us serfs should ever criticize "our superiors" even in the slightest and see themselves as above the people they "protect and serve". That somehow the "dangers of the job" give cops free license to disregard the very laws they are there to "enforce" (and the constitution that backs them).

Most of us have acknowledged that the vast majority of police officers are decent folk, but the instant one of us peons complains about one of the few bad ones there's this cry of "cop bashing" :rolleyes:

As for "the inability to see ANYTHING from a LEO standpoint", I think the reverse is also true ... there are many LEOs who refuse to see things from the standpoint of the law abiding armed citizen.

Lets remember, we're both (LEOs and serfs alike) on the same side here.

Jester249
July 13, 2004, 11:32 AM
3. assumed facts not in evidemce. When did the cop that made the traffic stop reply saying he wasn't familiar with a firearm?

Diggler
July 13, 2004, 11:45 AM
I have a gun in my pocket right now. What is it? Is it a semi or revolver? Is the safety on, if semi? Is it cocked? Is there one in the chamber?

Would you go digging for it?

He was THAT unfamiliar with it because he couldn't see it.

Jester249
July 13, 2004, 11:55 AM
So I DID miss the officers post...

To answer your digging question, yes I would go digging. And I HAVE gone digging. Its part of the job and goes with the territory.

Diggler
July 13, 2004, 12:07 PM
He must have X-Ray vision then, unless he's omnipotent.

The point isn't whether you have gone digging before. This is a speeding ticket on a citizen, not someone who led you on a high speed chase or robbed a bank or has given ANY reason for someone to believe that she is a violent criminal. And it's not safe to go after an unknown gun in someone else's pocket.

If you stop someone who has given reason to believe that the person could likely be a danger to you, then go ahead and endanger that person by rooting around for weapons. It's a cost-benefit analysis. But I don't think that it's necessary to take the action that was earlier described unless there is good reason to believe the person could be dangerous.

Who knows, maybe I have a pen gun hidden somewhere you can't easily find it... do you have to get out the rubber gloves and go looking for it too?

:D

Jester249
July 13, 2004, 12:13 PM
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!

Everyone I stop IS a danger to me!

Like I said: anti-LEO.

Another thing I've noticed about the high road is all the people who know how to do my job, better than me, from the keyboard....

JohnBT
July 13, 2004, 12:13 PM
"What I've noticed here is that there are a handful of LEOs (and a handful of their sycophants) who don't believe us serfs should ever criticize "our superiors" even in the slightest and see themselves as above the people they "protect and serve"."

Sycophant - A person who attempts to win favor or advance himself by flattering persons of influence; a servile self-seeker.

Are you sure this is the word you wanted to use? You really think that a bunch of us are just brown-nosing suck-ups? Really?

Or are you just trying to impress someone? :D

John

Jester249
July 13, 2004, 12:14 PM
Thanks for making my point John! Zudfolge, you do a nice job too...:rolleyes:

answerguy
July 13, 2004, 12:16 PM
Pax,
Every other adult in the vehicle was legally armed.

That gives me a pretty good chuckle about the situation you described.
Cop disarms driver of carry weapon for 'officer safety' and then appears visibly relaxed. Mean while all the rest of the passengers have their 'hidden guns' still available to them. Truth be known the passenger's guns that were still in their posession were no bigger a threat to the officer's safety than the one the LEO confiscated.

Art Eatman
July 13, 2004, 12:21 PM
Diggler, had Tam been an off-duty LEO with a carry license, would you have "gone digging" for the pocket pistol?

The reason I ask is that if one has met the requirements for a Texas CHL, one has proven that one is as "pure" as any LEO.

To me, this particular instance is one of mindset about handguns on the part of that Austin policeman. IMO, it's particularly true due to Tam's comments to him as to the locations of her handguns and about putting her hands on the steering wheel.

Some of my attitude comes from my age. Were I so treated, my thought to myself would be, "Oh, Lord. Another newbie in the world of guns." Over 60 years of shooting makes it so...

:), Art

auschip
July 13, 2004, 12:23 PM
I'm still curious as to how more people handling a firearm in an admittedly tense environment ensures officer safety. It seems that the officer would be taking on more liability if an ND/AD occurred.

Jester249
July 13, 2004, 12:34 PM
If you are still curious, you.....never mind.

Diggler
July 13, 2004, 12:40 PM
Art: I ain't NEVER going to go digging for anyone's CCW... live and let live. Of course I'm not a LEO so I can't do that. Now if someone broke into my house and I needed to disarm them after restraining them I would. But that's MUCH different than me reaching into the pockets of everyone who comes into my house.

And Jester, I'm definitely not anti-LEO. I have family who are retired life-long LEOs. Almost went into it myself.

And, btw, everyone you stop is a PERCIEVED danger to you. Just because you think they are, doesn't make it so. And the fact she had a license to carry should have told the officer that she was much better than average.

It's easy to have your attitude when YOU'RE not the one who could end up with blood spurting from the femoral artery because of a negligent discharge from an unfamiliar weapon.

R.H. Lee
July 13, 2004, 12:41 PM
If the officer was truly concerned about his safety, he could have just had her step out of the car, and place her hands palms down on the hood of the patrol vehicle, while he stood beside her and wrote the ticket. There was no need to frisk and disarm. I can't help but think he had other motives.

Jester249
July 13, 2004, 12:43 PM
"Truly" spoken from the safety and cumfort of your key board.

Diggler
July 13, 2004, 12:45 PM
You know, if the officer really wants me to disarm during a stop, fine. I don't want him being nervous while he has a gun... :what:

BUT if he felt it was absolutely necessary to disarm her, he could have allowed her to slowly take it out herself with 2 or 3 fingers and she could have given it to him. Heck, it's hard for my wife to get her cigarette lighter out of my jeans when we go out, let alone a bulkier handgun!

R.H. Lee
July 13, 2004, 12:50 PM
"Truly" spoken from the safety and cumfort of your key board

The primary function of police is not "officer safety". It is public safety.

Jester249
July 13, 2004, 12:59 PM
Public safety? Yep it comes right AFTER MY safety. You don't have to like it, but thats the way it is.

Diggler
July 13, 2004, 01:06 PM
That damn pesky Constitution. Keeps getting in the way, doesn't it? You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.

So, Jester, what do you think about non-LEOs being able to carry concealed in general??

:confused:

Diggler
July 13, 2004, 01:10 PM
Public safety? Yep it comes right AFTER MY safety. You don't have to like it, but thats the way it is.I'm glad that there were scores of NYPD and NYFD that didn't feel that way on 9/11/01 and helped save thousands of lives.

R.H. Lee
July 13, 2004, 01:23 PM
Public safety? Yep it comes right AFTER MY safety. You don't have to like it, but thats the way it is.


Uh, ok. :rolleyes: Sounds like your attitude will cost your department some big bucks and lots of bad press someday.

Daniel T
July 13, 2004, 01:25 PM
Public safety? Yep it comes right AFTER MY safety. You don't have to like it, but thats the way it is.

I don't believe that it's about safety for a second. Sounds like you're the power trip type.

Jester249
July 13, 2004, 02:04 PM
Boy you have me figured out, all right!:rolleyes:

Zundfolge
July 13, 2004, 02:06 PM
Public safety? Yep it comes right AFTER MY safety. You don't have to like it, but thats the way it is.

Disarming us "civilians" who are licensed to carry is NOT enhancing your safety (or my safety or the safety of anyone within line of sight).

You're just as likely (hell, maybe more likely) to be murdered by a fellow officer than a citizen with a CHL and you are definitely more likely to be killed or injured (or kill or injure someone else) by a negligent discharge trying to clear a gun you're not familiar with.


Keep the damn gun in the CHL holders holster where its actually safe and quit using this "safety" bovine scat as an excuse to bully CHL holders.

Jester249
July 13, 2004, 02:10 PM
To those of you that know more about our job than we do, why don't you get involved in teaching cops how to do the job "right"? There are dozens of police academy locations throughout the nation. Please show us how to conduct a traffic stop, "the right way". Afterall, there is more room on the Leo memorial in D.C. for dead cops names. AND they'll add to thew wall, so nobody is left out....



I now remember why I don't visit the high road very often. F4GIB came trolling over at coptalk, "quoting" me in a half-assed way, so I thought I'd come and have a look again. Good thing I had the time to waste...

Zundfolge
July 13, 2004, 02:36 PM
To those of you that know more about our job than we do, why don't you get involved in teaching cops how to do the job "right"?
I don't know more about "your job" then you, but I bet I know more about firearms and firearm safety then your average cop.

I am currently in the process of becoming a certified instructor so maybe I'll be instructing police trainees in safe weapon handling before you know it.

Afterall, there is more room on the Leo memorial in D.C. for dead cops names.
:rolleyes: Jeebus ... do you listen? Disarming a CHL holder at the side of the road makes you LESS SAFE not more. So if you insist that disarming us is the best course of action you are either oblivious to the truth, or safety is NOT your real reason for doing so.


If us CHL holders are so damn dangerous why don't you just shoot us on sight and make your little police state more safe :rolleyes:



At least, please drop this foolish "false dichotomy" fallacy of logic crap (seems your position is that if you don't agree 100% with police policy then you are an anti-cop bigot).

Believe it or not I want whats best for both the officers on patrol and law abiding citizens.

Diggler
July 13, 2004, 02:41 PM
Not far from the LEO memorial wall is a graveyard FILLED with white crosses honoring those who have given their lives so that the citizens of the United States of America could keep their freedom. Who died so that people could burn the flag the soldiers died for. So people could spit on them as they came back from war.

They stood up for what was right even though it wasn't the safest option for them. You're supporting the endangering of women by temporarily and unneccesarily disarming them while risking a ND, even when they are traveling alone.

Like I said, if you REAAALY need the gun (that I told you about) while writing me up, at least don't treat me like a common criminal while you do it.

When you run the plates before you meet the driver, you probably already know if the car is stolen, if the likely driver has warrants, or other extenuating circumstances. Do you think someone is going to kill you so they don't have to pay a $100 ticket for going 45 in a 35? If someone wanted to kill a police officer so badly, they could walk up behind them in a convenience store while said officer was waiting in line, or even as you walk up to the driver's side window BEFORE she hands you license/registration!

The more I hear from SOME of the LEOs on this board, the more I think that my uncle was an exception rather than the rule. And I don't want to think that way.

flatrock
July 13, 2004, 03:30 PM
It seems to me like a lot of people on this thread need to go back and read her original post.

I want to be very clear: I have no complaints about the cop's friendliness or courteousness--he was polite, courteous, and friendly.

This wasn't an example of a cop who was beligerant towards CCW holders. This seems like an officer who was inexperienced and poorly trained.

Suggestions that she should infer that he sexually harassed her disgust me. Sexual harassment is a very serious thing and should't be used dishonestly to ruin someone's reputation.

Was the officer's actions in disarming her legal? I suspect they were. However, they also seem to be unwarranted, and dangerous. There is ample evidence that CCW holders commit very few crimes. If you have a CCW you are considered safe to carry a concealed weapon in public around other citizens, why should an officer assume that you are a danger to them? It makes no sense to the point of being absurd, yet many people will support the idea that any person with a gun is a threat to an officer. Heck if the average person is so dangerous, why do we let them drive around in big mobile weapons we cal cars?

If a person is acting suspicious or aggressive, I can understand the officer having probabile cause to be concerned for their safety and disarm them. However, disarming someone just because they were stopped for speeding is absurd.

I think she should relate the facts of the situation, without embilishment, to the officer's superiors, and explain why his actions were unsafe and in poor judgment.

Daniel T
July 13, 2004, 04:17 PM
Was the officer's actions in disarming her legal? I suspect they were.

They were absolutely legal. In Texas, an officer may disarm a CCW holder at whim for the duration of their contact.

However (and this is said dozens of times in every open-carry thread), just because you can legally do something doesn't mean you should. What's more, I know for a fact that neither Travis County nor Austin PD have a policy of disarming CCW licensees beyond the aforementioned officer's discretion.

Seems like it'd be a waste of time to me, but then I actually know the crimal statistics associated with CCW holders.

madcowburger
July 13, 2004, 07:43 PM
A cop who places his personal safety above the safety, the rights, and the human dignity of those he supposedly protects and serves is in the wrong line of work. Time was, cops got *fired* for an excessive, disproportionate concern for their own safety. They should look for easier, safer employment as loggers, railroad workers, miners, high-rise construction workers, cab drivers, or convenience store clerks.

(I don't have the statistics at my fingertips just now, but I'm told that a convenience store clerk has almost three times the chance of getting shot on the job as a police officer on duty, mainly because the clerk is usually forbidden to be armed, by law, by company policy, or by someone's "discretion.")

If "The Job" necessarily involves routinely diregarding and/or violating the safety, rights, and dignity of the "civilians," then I for one certainly cannot tell you the right way to do that. There's no right way to do a wrong thing.

My mistake: it seems that America *is* Iraq and all us non-LEO Americans *are* Iraqis after all.

Not all anti-LEO feeling just came naturally or just spontaneously appeared from a vacuum. I myself grew up in a cop household and was very pro-LEO until circa 1986. I mean most people thought I was entirely *too* friendly with the police, to the extent that I became a frequent target for vandalism, sabotage, threats of violence, and actual assaults.

Since then it has seemed to me that I am caught between the jaws of a vise, with the actual, fundamentally, naturally criminal types on the one hand, and the police who can't tell the difference between a CCW/CCH license/permit holder and some gangbanger -- police who consider *every* non-LEO they meet a threat to them -- on the other hand. It's a tight squeeze.

MCB

R.H. Lee
July 13, 2004, 07:48 PM
mcb-
Please *stop* doing *that*. It makes you *sound* like w4rma.:p

madcowburger
July 13, 2004, 10:53 PM
Um, I'm sorry, I don't know what w4rma stands for. I hope it's something good. I'm kind of new to the Internet, and don't know a lot of the abbreviations yet.

MCB

Deavis
July 13, 2004, 11:10 PM
Sort of figgered youd chime in :barf:

wherearethemodstostopbaselesspersonalattacks?


Must have missed something during my move :rolleyes:

I guess I'll have to be careful since I just moved to Austin. Tam, If you need help writing a letter, I'd be happy to volunteer my time.

Anthony

JohnKSa
July 13, 2004, 11:33 PM
Public safety? Yep it comes right AFTER MY safety. You don't have to like it, but thats the way it is.There are a lot of jobs that are much safer.

Jobs that don't require you to frequently stand or park on highway shoulders where idiots can easily accidentally run you down.

Jobs that are extremely unlikely to put you in a situation where you have to deal with armed criminals.

Jobs where you don't EVER have to disarm someone.

Why pick LE (a relatively dangerous profession) if your safety is truly your first concern?

cropcirclewalker
July 14, 2004, 12:26 AM
So. I go away for a day or so and this is what happens. Look you guys. Not every LEO is as screwed up as that jester guy or the new hire, shaved head, cop a feel, trainee down there in Austin.

Maybe Tam (I don't know her) is a babe. Maybe all (or most of you) would wanna go "diggin' in her britches.

I might even like it if some babe cop went diggin' in MY britches.

So, the cop was a prevert. Like my ol' dad used to say, "There ain't no cure fer a ****** eatin' dog". Just because he was defective does not mean that they are all defective.

I was driving to NC one Friday night with my wife and crossed the bridge into Kentucky. Wickliffe, KY. For those of you that are geographically challenged or are unfamiliar with the midwest, there is like a quarter of a mile that one must drive through Illinois on good Ol' us 60 to get from MO to KY. Two bridges, one over the Mississippi, a quarter of a mile through IL, a bridge over the Illinois. Fort Defiance, they call it. I always hold my breath on that section of road since IL is so psycopathically anti.

So, anyway, I am coming down the bridge into Kentucky. Free again into the town of Wickliffe. So there is a soberiety check. Ordinarily, when I encounter a soberiety check I just put my shootin' iron on the seat. Open carry.

Since the Missus was with me, I was inclined to put it somewhere where it was more visable. I laid it up on the dash. "Officer safety".

So I pull up to the statie. He looks at my DL. "Good evening" and all that stuff. Finally he says, "What you did with your firearm is exactly right. I appreciate that you put it in such a place as to inform me that you were armed."

I guess he was a rational, growed up, mature, sensible, good American, God fearin', constitution lovin", red blooded American cop. Thank God we have the ones that we do.

He gave me back my license, told me to have a good evening and sent me on my way. My wife, who was mostly an anti, was dumbfounded. She (you know how wives are) was expecting that she would have to drive on herself, bail me out, and tell me how I was a dumb ******. She had a catharsis (sp?).

Life in the open carry world for me has been a lot simpler since.

Sorry about the ramblin''.

Point is, Not all cops are dumb, swinely, preverted, power mad, stupid, irrational, ignorant, Barney Fife types like we all like to imagine. Some of them are decent rational real persons.

I wish that my friends on missouricarry.com could read this post. They would not believe it.:p

edited for spelling

S_O_Laban
July 14, 2004, 01:57 AM
Yeah.... your right, CCW, some of them probably wouldn't believe it:neener: :D

Skytrooper
July 14, 2004, 03:21 AM
In reading through the numerous preceding posts, I don't know which is more disturbing, the arrogant "I'm a cop, you're a lowly pissant" mentality so common to contemporary LEOs or the supine "Oh, I've got a CCW permit. Gee, I'm so law-abiding."

When I attended the FBI Academy in 1983 (NAC 83-14), I was taught there was no individual right to possess firearms and that the government could restrict or abolish the private ownership of guns anytime it wanted. The ex-cops in my class, particularly an ex-LAPD ex-Marine, argued that only LEOs and retired LEOs should be "allowed" to possess any handgun. I spoke out in defense of the Constitution, especially the Second Amendment, and soon found myself before a New Agent Review Board where I was castigated for owning "too many guns" and belonging to a "subversive organization" - the NRA.

Many cops on this thread argued the female driver caused all of her problems by her heinous offense, exceeding the Austin speed limit by 10 mph. I had the misfortune to be driving through Dallas last month. I was driving at the speed limit in the right lane of I-35E and was continually nearly blown off the road by cars shooting past me, including police cars. Driving at the speed limit in Texas appears to make one an impediment to the flow of traffic.

Last year, Bill Janklow, South Dakota's sole U.S. representative and former governor, killed a motorcyclist while driving (he drove right past a stop sign without even slowing down). Convicted of manslaughter, instead of the multi-year sentence given to typical citizens, he only had to spend 100 days in jail and after three years his felony conviction will be permanently erased. The South Dakota Highway Patrol recently (and grudgingly) revealed that Janklow had been stopped sixteen times by SD's stalwart LEOs for speeding (far in excess of 10 mph over the limit) without receiving a ticket. These brave "brothers of the shield" admitted they refused to ticket Janklow out of fear of losing their job. If these cops had performed their duty, Janklow's drivers license would have been revoked and presumably he wouldn't have been in position to run over the motorcyclist he did. However, when given the choice of doing what's right or protecting their pension, "right" didn't stand a chance with these officers.

How does the recently-developed notion of "officer safety" somehow supercede the Constitution? You remember the Constitution. That's the document you each took an oath to support and defend; an oath most of you promptly ignored and betrayed.

CCW permit? [sigh ...] The right to keep and bear arms is supposed to be an unalienable indvidual right. For any politicians, attorneys, prosecutors or LEOs reading this, unalienable means "that which cannot be taken away." I understand since the mid-1930s that word means nothing in U.S. courts, but, as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, that concept is the foundation of what is supposed to be a free Republic.

Congress (legitimately) only has those powers expressly delegated to it (by the people) in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. No power to restrict or prohibit the private possession of firearms was ever delegated. To the contrary, the Second Amendment explicitly forbids any infringement of the right to bear arms. Under the incorporation doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Second Amendment's prohibition against anti-gun laws is extended to the states (this was a major reason behind enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866). In 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court ruled that any law passed in violation of the Constitution was null and void; no person was obliged to obey it, no court could enforce it. I cannot fathom this craven enthusiasm by "law-abiding" gun owners to eagerly obey overtly unconstitutional laws that abridge or completely abrogate unalienable individual liberties. Do you obtain written permission from some government agency before writing a member of Congress, speaking in public, or posting on THR? How did the children of the American Revolution sink to such depths of docility and ignorance?

Zach S
July 14, 2004, 09:32 AM
posted by pax:
I got ticketed for three over once upon a time, years ago. <snip> But yes, you can get a ticket for just a few over. Depends. I know of a department that cant issue a ticket for anything under nine over the posted limit.

This is against the law in NC as well, and automatically gets your CCW permit revoked. BTW, in NC the CCW permit is linked to your license plate record, so the officer probably already knows you're a permit holder as soon as he runs your plates. I didnt know my CHP was linked to the DMV, untill I got stopped one day for not having an inspection sticker (I think). One of the first things he asked was if I was armed. I said no, he said okay, and the stop went on like normal.

For those wondering, I wasnt armed.

cropcirclewalker
July 14, 2004, 11:02 AM
YOU DA MAN!:D

redhead
July 14, 2004, 11:03 AM
If you advise the officer you ARE armed, they are taught to secure the weapon.

Fascinating. I was with my nephew a few weeks ago when he was pulled over for speeding. He handed over his DL license, registration, CCW permit, and told the officer there was a firearm in the vehicle. Officer asked where it was, nephew said it was in daypack on the floor. Officer said, fine, leave it there. No further ado. No groping, no leaving a weapon unconcealed on the front seat.

wprebeck
July 14, 2004, 08:32 PM
You know, I don't post here much, and there's a good reason for it.....I'll let you figure it out.


Here's the problem with people on here, as well as GT (Hi, Jester):
Everyone likes to throw out statistics on how low the crime rate, esp. violent crime, is for CCW holders. Well, great! I mean that, and am not being sarcastic. I am a CCW holder, was before the badge, will be again after the badge. That's not my point. I'm well aware that most CCW'rs are decent people. Yeah, they take the time to go thru a background check, complete the (if any) mandated training, and possibly extra training. Again, great!

The problem (I'm finally getting to that) is that statistics are just numbers. If CCW'rs have a murder rate that is .0001%, fine and dandy. However, that means that SOMEONE who holds a CCW committed murder somewhere down the line, otherwise it'd just be 0%, right? Now, what if me pulling someone over is the last straw for a CCW'r? I mean, we ALL have bad days, and some are worse than others. Is my partner gonna go home, tell my wife and kids that their daddy is dead, but it's OK, because that murder didn't affect the CCW murder rate in any appreciable manner?

You see, an NCIC check (which is what most, if not all, CCW'rs go thru) does not automatically confer sainthood on someone. Guess what? There's a lot of cop-bashing on here (don't deny it, mods), and cops go thru the SAME background check. Only, they get a lot more done before they get hired. I'm not gonna go into details, if only to save time & bandwidth, but here's the basics: Written test, Oral exam (BPAD in a lot of areas), Physical fitness test, BACKGROUND (more in a minute), polygraph, chief's interview, medical exam, pscyhological tests (full battery), and that's all to get hired. More weeding out is done during the acadcemy and FTO periods. Even with all that, we still have bad cops out there.

The background check:
Usually in-depth, covering school (high school & college), work history (the agency up here requires you to go back to age 18), credit history, polygraph, interviews with neighbors, spouse, family, current employers, etc. Plus, NCIC check is performed. Now, again, we still have officers who would be considered "bad cops", do we not? I'll concede to that, as will most other officers. But, you people on here look at a CCW as the next thing to God Himself. Why? YOu haven't gone thru even a fraction's worth of background as we have.....but you won't trust us, yet expect us to trust you.

Back to statistics:
I've got 3 cases involving CCW'rs who were in the wrong. Two were arrested (and will hopefully lose their permits, as they've displayed that they CANNOT be trusted to carry a gun), and one was not. Here's some brief details on them:
1) High crime area, late at night. Subject in apt. complex where he did NOT live, carrying openly. Granted, nothing illegal about it, just VERY suspicious, as this is area where drive-by shootings are common. Subject had valid CCW, but REFUSED vehemently to cover it with shirt. FInally agreed to do so, and had "concealed MEANS concealed" explained. I witnessed this, but was not officer "explaining" things to him. Again, he was not illegal, but he wasn't the brightest bulb in the store. Subject was not arrested.

2) Searching incoming prisoners one night, and in process of doing this, discover subject has CCW. I look at his charges, and he's been out smoking the weed....I ask him why, and he states that it was his birthday. Yeah, that's a good reason to break the law, and give CCW'rs a bad name. SUbject recieved lecture on how idiotic it is to partake in illegal drugs when one is CCW holder. Subject also made very aware that officer is VERY pro-carry, and that subject is nothing short of a moron for weed usage, b-day or not. Oh, I wonder if he puts that on his 4473?

3) The last one, and the "best" one....Subject goes to high school to pick up son. Either while enroute to, or upon arrival at, the school, subject is made aware that someone is "fighting" with his son. Subject then enters fray, and in front of numerous witnesses, exits vehicle, & displays gun. Those of you here in Louisville should remember this well, as it was at Seneca High school. Well, subject is arrested, as there was NO justification to involve firearm, let alone break law and exit vehicle with weapon. (It's OK to have one in your car on school property in KY, as long as it's not brandished and stays in vehicle)

So, 2 out of 3 dummies that were permit holders screwed up. The third one was just stupid, but not illegal. Now, statistically, that's not a lot of crime, considering the total amount of CCW'rs in the state. But, what if the moron at the school decided to shoot the responding officers, because of some stupid reasonor another. Now, both the cop & the CCW'r are statistics, but the family of the officer will now grow up without a dad.


My point to this is simple....if the cop doesn't feel safe with you carrying a gun, right or wrong, he is well within his rights to disarm you. DOn't like it, don't speed, keep your tags up-to-date, etc. Like I tell inmates: It's easy to avoid jail...millions of people do it every day.

And for the jerk-off who said that officers should perhaps pick a "safer" job, thereby insinuating that we're all power-hungry cowards (yeah, I know you didn't say it, but it was there, nonetheless), here's something for you:

I don't care about my safety for me, necessarily. I'm fully aware that I may go to work, and not come home at night. That has since quit bothering me. My wife is also a LEO, and understands, because she faces the same risks. I worry about my safety for two other reasons:
Brittany, who is almost 5
Wes, who is 6 months old.

I will be there for them to grow up with, and if disarming a CCW'r who went thru an NCIC check 5 years ago means I get to come home, then guess what? Someone is getting their gun taken away. Deal with it.

R.H. Lee
July 14, 2004, 08:36 PM
Deal with it.

There's your answer.

wprebeck
July 14, 2004, 08:47 PM
Boiled down, ignoring (as do most liberals, amazingly enough) the rest of the post explaining my views on CCW, and giving examples of CCW holders who aren't saints (as most of the posters here seem to suggest), yes, that's the answer.


BUT,

that's like giving the answer to a calculus problem, but ignoring how you got there. The reasons behind it make sense, if you think about it. However, if you don't wish to think, simply take the end product, and go.

R.H. Lee
July 14, 2004, 09:11 PM
Boiled down, ignoring (as do most liberals, amazingly enough) the rest of the post explaining my views on CCW, and giving examples of CCW holders who aren't saints (as most of the posters here seem to suggest), yes, that's the answer.


BUT,

that's like giving the answer to a calculus problem, but ignoring how you got there. The reasons behind it make sense, if you think about it. However, if you don't wish to think, simply take the end product, and go.



Your post attempts to justify why you think cops are a special privileged class who can do no wrong as a result of screening and training. The facts contradict that opinion. Hardly a week goes by without a fatal error committed by a LEO somewhere. There is another thread on this board discussing the fatal shooting of an unarmed man in his own bed. I understand and fully support your right to insure your own safety. When you assert that right in a belligerent and hostile manner with a lawfully armed citizen (because you think you are a member of a superior class?), you do yourself no favor. Your occupation can be inherently dangerous.
Deal with it.

Mr. Clark
July 14, 2004, 09:14 PM
And yet again the cops on this board prove to be their own worst enemy.

cropcirclewalker
July 14, 2004, 09:39 PM
don't you think it would be better for your safety if you just threw down on all the middle aged women speeders and had them crawl out of their veekles and lay down on the concrete? Save you a lot of apprehension.

That's not why I am replying to your post. You must be an intellectual. Only intellectuals worry about how you got there. The rest of us just need to know the answer.

Ducky on Navy NCIS is way cool. :D

So, anyway this new college graduate (Mechanical Engineering) hired on with Tom Edison. He was anxious to prove his mettle and old Tom wanted to know who he had hired.

On his first day, ol' Tom gave the bright new graduate a glass envelope. Thats what they call the shmoo (remember Lil' Abner?) shaped glass container that they make light bulbs out of. He says the the newbie, "Please determine for me the volume of this envelope."

The new guy, all full of pi$$ and vinegar, leapt to his task. He had taken calculus and knew all about it. He carefully measured the envelope determining all the diameters, radii, length and so on (This was back in the day of the slide rule, no computers, cad systems, or whatever here), just long division and pencils and papers.

Time passes.

Later in the afternoon, the newbie walks up to Tom, all proud and convinced that he had done all the computations correctly, and even did them twice. "Here is it's volume, sir", he said as he handed the calculations to TOM.

Ol' Tom said, "Let's see." He filled the envelope with water, poured it into a graduated cylinder, read the volume and said, "Yep, yer right."

Do you think I care how many times your background was probed? No.

I would just like to know how you can swear an oath to (pick one, protect and defend, uphold, follow, enforce or whatever) the constitution and then have the timerity to accost your "stupid" employer and tell him that he may not exercise his God given right, protected from infringement by our constitution, and then be able to sleep at night.

You don't need to tell me how you got there, just how.

:rolleyes:

Zundfolge
July 14, 2004, 11:25 PM
wprebeck, I'm not arguing against an officer's right to disarm someone with a CHL in a state that grants them that right, I'm arguing against the wisdom of doing so.


Overall there are more cops who have become murders then CHL holders ... if you believe its reasonable to disarm CHL holders, they why not fellow officers?


Certainly not every cop who disarms a CHL holder is doing so because he's a prick ... most (I would even imagine the officer that Tam dealt with) do so out of ignorance.

I still contend that disarming a CHL holder is both unnecessary and dangerous ... more dangerous then just leaving the weapon in their holster and telling them to keep their hands away from it.

thumbody
July 15, 2004, 03:55 AM
WOW Jester and all the other elitist LEOs out there Go back and read your posts and you will see why people feel alienated against the police. If you are so damn afraid of those who are liscensed to carry.Please find a new means of employment. Check the numbers You are much more likely to be attacked by a person who does not have a cwp than a person who does. So logically you should (for your own safety ) remove and search any contact who does not have a cwp and stop the senseless harassment of those who are the least likely to be a problem. Officers like you who come across as believing yourselves better or more important than non leos cause more resentment than any leo basher ever could

Skytrooper
July 15, 2004, 04:06 AM
wprebeck wrote, “There’s a lot of cop-bashing on here.” One of my character traits (perhaps even a character flaw) is my inability to suffer fools gladly. I dearly wish I could give wprebeck’s assertion the reply it richly deserves. However, if I did so, I suspect I would be summarily banned from THR as occurred recently on another forum. I will have to settle for a severely restrained response.

I previously cited the SDHP’s disclosure that sixteen SD LEOs failed to cite ex-governor Bill Janklow for a long history of reckless driving and excessive speed. These brave LEOs admitted their dereliction was due to a fear of losing their jobs. The SDHP spokesman referred to this craven misbehavior as the officers exercising “liberal discretion.” Right. As a consequence of these LEOs’ fear, excuse me “liberal discretion,” an innocent motorcyclist was killed by Janklow, a person whose license would surely have been revoked if these LEOs had performed their duty.

I’ve had decades of experience observing the conduct of LEOs, from serving in an MP company in the Army, as a special agent in the FBI, and frequent contact with cops and wannabe cops, police science majors, Police Explorer scouts, etc. I wish I had a dollar for every instance I’ve observed where a cop failed (as a matter of normal routine) to cite another cop, wannabe LEO or friend of a LEO for criminal misconduct: drug use, DUI, reckless driving, severely excessive speeding, etc. In 1974, a police science major at Hartnell College in Salinas, CA gave me a lift home in his sports car. I was yelling at him to slow down while he drove 45 mph in a 15 mph school zone as elementary school children were going home. An SPD unit with a radar gun hit its lights and pulled the miscreant over. Great! My delight was short-lived as the cop waved the driver off as soon as he recognized him as a police science major he knew. Last I heard, this vehemently anti-gun police science major was employed as a cop with the Pacific Grove, CA PD. I could cite scores of similar or worse misdeeds. This common behavior by LEOs does not instill respect for police among the general public.

Applicants who admit to a history of drug use during their screening process (“admit” because they’re hooked up to a polygraph machine), are routinely hired as police officers. These people have no moral dilemma in arresting other Americans for engaging in precisely the same behavior they “enjoyed.” Our class supervisor at the FBI Academy told us in no uncertain terms that we would never be trusted once we reached our field offices until other agents had some “dirt” on us. This is the world’s “premier” law enforcement agency? We were told to log in at bogus times when reporting for work each day to insure everyone got their 25% “automatic” overtime, despite the small detail many agents never worked the actual hours. We were warned that if we logged in at the correct time (referred to as keeping an “honest book”), we would be ostracized, threatened, and could expect other agents to slash the tires on our personal vehicles.

Posters on various firearms-related forums properly decry Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, and other politicians responsible for enactment of anti-gun and other pernicious legislation. As deplorable as these scum are, Chuck, Dianne, Ted, etc. have never forced their way into a home, threatened a decent family at gunpoint, and killed or imprisoned Americans (and seized their guns) who merely exercised an unalienable individual right - the possession of firearms for self-protection and the preservation of their liberties. Politicians and LEOs all swear an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution; an oath most promptly ignore and betray. Each legislator and LEO consider themselves to be a “good person.” Charles Schumer tells his constituents he supports the Second Amendment (in his opinion its words just don’t mean what they clearly say). LEOs have an uncanny ability to rationalize their zealous enforcement of overtly unconstitutional edicts. They’re just “following orders” (the Nuremberg defense). It’s the courts’ job to “interpret” the laws; we just “enforce” them. The fact the laws they enforce are so blatantly unconstitutional that they would offend the intelligence of a reasonably bright six year-old is irrelevant.

German police rationalized their enforcement of Nazi anti-gun and anti-Jewish laws (GCA-68 was drafted by Senator Thomas Dodd using an English language translation of the Nazi Law on Weapons of March 18, 1938). German “special courts” upheld any abridgement of human freedom; American trial judges will not even permit defendants to mention the Constitution before jurors. U.S. appellate courts routinely refuse to consider the overwhelming historical evidence showing the original intent behind enactment of the Second Amendment. Most LEOs realize this; however, these facts in no way deter them from “enforcing” laws they know violate the Constitution they swore to uphold. There is no moral distinction between the German police and Gestapo agents of 1938 and most of our federal agents and LEOs today.

Somewhere in America there may be a police officer or federal agent (obviously this excludes anyone employed by the BATFE) who genuinely adheres to the Constitution and honors his or her oath as they perform their duties. If this LEO actually exists, he or she has my utmost respect. However, I expect to encounter a unicorn or an honest attorney first.
____________________________________________________________

Watch your butt if you've ever done anything to make "law enforcement" mad at you; and remember when you're dealing with government enforcers you're dealing with people utterly without ethics or human decency. - Claire Wolfe, Don't Shoot The Bastards (Yet): 101 More Ways to Salvage Freedom (1999)

Wildalaska
July 15, 2004, 05:41 AM
Excellent post Mr beck!

And welcome to the High Road. :)

And as for out other newbie, Skytrooper...

Somewhere in America there may be a police officer or federal agent (obviously this excludes anyone employed by the BATFE) who genuinely adheres to the Constitution and honors his or her oath as they perform their duties. If this LEO actually exists, he or she has my utmost respect. However, I expect to encounter a unicorn or an honest attorney first.

Yep a FORMER FBI agent...Ill just keep my mouth shut except to say...axe to grind...??

Naw its the internet....dont feed the trolls....no matter how good they can write a sentence....even David Koresh made sense...to someone.....

WildwonderhowlongyouwilllasthereaLASKA

HankB
July 15, 2004, 09:32 AM
wprebeck:But, you people on here look at a CCW as the next thing to God Himself. Why? YOu haven't gone thru even a fraction's worth of background as we have.....but you won't trust us, yet expect us to trust you. Not every person who passes a background check is perfect. But statistically speaking, if you look at things like arrest records, civilian CHL holders are more law-abiding than police officers in many jurisdictions.what if me pulling someone over is the last straw for a CCW'r? I mean, we ALL have bad days, and some are worse than others.
But the logic expressed in your post, civilians ought to draw down on cops, or flee at high speed, because they just might be on the verge of being victimized by a bad cop who's had a bad day, and their traffic infraction is just the last straw.

I'm still glad to see, from reading other posts, that Officer Gropeatelli, whose actions prompted this thread, still appears to be in the minority among LEOs.

Diggler
July 15, 2004, 10:04 AM
I still think that if you want to disarm, fine but do it with deference to who you're dealing with.

If it's a middle aged lady with no warrants and being polite, let her get the holster and gun out together on her own while you keep an eye on her. She gives it to you, both are happy.

If it's a crack runner in a stolen car with a "KILL ALL PIGS" tattoo on his/her forehead, I think you might want to search the person yourself.

Baba Louie
July 15, 2004, 10:35 AM
Holy Haysues... (small rant follows)
Tam (and all other CCW holders)... Slow Down and obey the Law (please). Higher standard, Officer safety, Public safety and all that applies, right?

If you hadn't gotten the bike cops attention while he was doing his job, you wouldn't have had his undivided, focussed and unwanted attention immediately afterward.

Maybe the bike cop wanted to cop a feel (doubtful), maybe he wanted you disarmed and didn't want to call in a female officer for the disarm/grope (how fast can you draw that piece in tightish shorts anyway?) due to time factor. Let his boss know how you feel, let the world know how you feel... but please slow down when driving a 2,000+ lb potential deadly weapon. If you feel the need for speed, deal with the aftermath... it can be messy at worst or inconveniant and a longer time delay whilst awaiting your traffic court appearance contract.

People are people, CCW, Badged Officers or otherwise. Some are good, some aren't as good, some are downright bad, some feel they're elite and should be above the norm.

Seems like every situation depends on someone's Ox being gored. Whose Ox? Who's doing the goring? From Tam's initial post to the back and forthing of CCW v. LEO bashing v. LEO attitude v. THR members positioning remember to keep a low profile, stick to THR, obey (or work to change) the law(s) but while carrying (or driving) work to keep everyone out of harms way.

(small rant off...) Now, go back to your regularly scheduled spiral gridlock of Us v. Them :D

And stay safe out there.

feedthehogs
July 15, 2004, 10:47 AM
Everyone I stop IS a danger to me!

I'll have to remind my 85 year old mom that the police think she is a brazen dangerous criminal if she ever gets pulled over and don't move suddenly lest she gets shot.

" out of the car lady you have a broken tail lite. Put your hands on the hood and spread the legs. Don't make any sudden moves, I got you covered."

But officer its just a tail lite that some kids in my neighborhood keep breaking. I'm on a fixed income and can't afford to keep replacing. I've reported it to the police but they say it's not important enough to investigate.

"I don't care what your problems are, your a danger to me and other fellow officers. Just keep quiet while I finish patting you down."


You are the product of a self recognized elite society of brain washing that sees everyone who doesn't wear blue as a criminal. Guilty until proven innocent.

The really sad fact is that the majority of police officers don't have those attitudes. But like us peons, the whole suffer for the actions of the few.

I also believe that if you randomly took 1000 THR members and 1000 random police officers that the over whelming majority of THR members are much more proficient and safe with a firearm than the officers.

When was the last time you heard of a criminal going to the trouble of getting a carry permit then going out and robbing a liquor store?

Anyone who reports to you that they are carrying has shown you respect and concern for your safety. Would a criminal or dangerous person do that?

You were one of us before the blue suit, let those thoughts bleed back through. You'll be okay.

papaone
July 15, 2004, 11:03 AM
Deal with it...? Oh brother.:barf: :barf:

Diggler
July 15, 2004, 11:03 AM
" out of the car lady you have a broken tail lite. Put your hands on the hood and spread the legs. Don't make any sudden moves, I got you covered." I heard that in Arkansas, from 1982-1992, the correct protocol for officers conducting a traffic stop on good looking women was to order them to "Please step out of the car and place your hands on the Governor!"

:D

ojibweindian
July 15, 2004, 01:44 PM
People with a badge, like wprebeck, are why I will never trust a cop. Period.

As Mr. Clark said
And yet again the cops on this board prove to be their own worst enemy.

Jester249
July 15, 2004, 05:00 PM
WOW Jester and all the other elitist LEOs out there Go back and read your posts and you will see why people feel alienated against the police


Yeah its the same people who call us when then need help! Its also the same people who think we should be able to spot the "good" people vs. the "bad" people, yet scream about profiling.

We LEO's thank you for your continued support!

Jester249
July 15, 2004, 05:01 PM
People with a badge, like wprebeck, are why I will never trust a cop. Period.

As Mr. Clark said


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet again the cops on this board prove to be their own worst enemy.


Yet we are the first to be called.....:neener:

R.H. Lee
July 15, 2004, 05:25 PM
Yet we are the first to be called.....

UTL:neener:

ojibweindian
July 15, 2004, 06:36 PM
Yet we are the first to be called.

Not by me. I have better things to do than wait to die.

Skytrooper
July 15, 2004, 07:43 PM
Jester249 wrote, "Yet we are the first to be called." Oh, that is funny! I see now why he chose Jester for a username. At the risk of being accused of cop-bashing, I will relate the three instances in which I called police for assistance.

Around age 10 or 11, I called the Salinas, CA PD and inquired if it was legal to shoot my BB gun at a farm well outside the city limits. An unfriendly cop informed me that it was illegal for lowly private citizens to even possess a BB gun; that wasn't true, even in California. This taught me the futility of seeking legal advice from the police.

In 1974, while driving in Monterey, CA, an evidently drunk driver crossed into my lane and smashed up the left rear portion of my car. I followed this miscreant for a long while until he lost me by driving the wrong way up a one-way street. Eventually, I located his pickup parked in front of a bar. I called the police and after a long wait a couple cops showed up. They had absolutely no interest in locating the driver who had struck my vehicle and fled the scene. They wouldn't even go inside the bar and ask if the driver was present.

As they were about to leave, one cop saw what he thought was a billy club behind the pickup's drivers seat. Both cops became very excited until finally deciding it was only a stick used for lawn work; then they departed. I couldn't understand their fascination over a possible billy club. Researching the California Penal Code, I discovered that possession of a billy club by a mere private citizen was a felony (concealed carry of a .44 Magnum was a misdemeanor). Sporting goods stores in Alaska sell small billy clubs for use on halibut and king salmon. Possession of a "fish billy" in California is a felony (this is the same state were it is a crime to buy boots made of Kangaroo leather). I still don't know which bothers me more: vile politicians who made it a crime (especially a felony) to merely possess a stick with a handle on it or police officers who eagerly enforce such a draconian, absurd law.

In 1986, while driving down a highway in Alaska (please note that most Alaskans are not like Wildalaska), I had to stop my truck due to a line of stopped vehicles ahead of me. Other vehicles had to come to a halt behind my pickup. After several minutes, a large water pumper truck came barreling backwards in the opposite lane. The driver swerved and drove his fire truck directly into the boat I was towing. The driver turned out to be the chief of a volunteer fire department; he was the only person in the fire truck. He immediately "got in my face" and raged at me for causing the accident by trying to pass him. Pass him? Over twenty witnesses were prepared to testify my truck was stationary; it was impossible for me to move forwards or backwards. There was no way I could have avoided this madman.

Complying with Alaska law, I called the police and reported the incident. It was obvious to everyone present that the "chief" was either under the influence of some substance or was mentally unbalanced. It was just a fluke he smashed into my boat instead of the small car full of four persons behind it. When an Alaska state trooper finally arrived, he conducted an investigation that can only charitably be described as cursory. After refusing to interview most of the witnesses, the trooper told me he was only citing the "chief" for "improper backing." Improper backing? A typical citizen would have been extraordinarily fortunate to only be cited for reckless driving. An instant after he said this, the trooper, in the arrogant tone so prevalent among many LEOs, demanded, "You got a problem with that?" Later, I discovered the "chief" was the state trooper's next door neighbor and best friend.

"Yet we are the first to be called." That's a good one.

alan
July 15, 2004, 07:49 PM
Tam:

If you have a moment for a possibly dumb question, why did you show the officer your carry permit, and why did you make any mention at all of being armed, legally or otherwise, unless state law requires that you so inform an "arresting officer"? Does it?

liliysdad
July 15, 2004, 10:52 PM
Oklahoma law requires the notification of the officer if the wepaon is being carried. I am fairly certain Texas is the same way.

If I recall correctly, is it not legal to carry a loaded wepon in the car without a permit, as the vehicle is an extension of the lhome?

I feel the officer did NOTHING wrong whatsoever. Most cops, if they felt the need to disarm a holder, would cuff them as well, just to be safe. Somethin in this stop raised his hackles...instinct isnt alwyas right, but it i far better to be safe than sorry.

palinly put, the lady got her poor feelings hurt, but the officer went home to his family. Sounds like a pretty good night to me. If we worried about offending someone every time we did something, we would never get anyhting done. My safety is numero uno, the subjects safety is next. By disarming a subject, you make it safer for everyone involved...if there is something that just doesnt add up. Somethimes you just get that feeling.

lady, deal with it...you werent cuffed and stuffed...no harm,. no foul.

deej
July 15, 2004, 11:15 PM
lady, deal with it...you werent cuffed and stuffed...no harm,. no foul.



Yeah, and they didn't even shoot her cat! She should be on her knees, grateful that such fine, upstanding public servants are protecting her.

hamhock
July 15, 2004, 11:19 PM
tam

i recently had a rather unnerving situation with a leo. to make a long story short the officer disarmed me for HIS SAFETY and then after retreiving my weapon he then turned his back on me for 20 to 25 seconds as he attempted to clear a live round from the chamber of my 1911. he thought the safety was a decocker and upon me instructing him how to prperly clear the firearm he then thumbs the safety off as his finger is on the trigger. fortunately for me he isnt covering me or any one else and the gun didnt fire. by the way he didnt have backup, didnt verify that i wasnt carrying my backupand didnt verify that i didnt have an edged weapon. after the whole incident was over i made sure that the officer stated that the reason he disarmed me was for his safety (in front of the cruiser so that the camera could catch the whole show.) i then contacted his chief and wrote him a very professional letter documenting the entire case. i would strongly reccomend that you do the same so that if the leo ever has an incident this behavior will be documented.

ben

"when we see animals in nature and their backsides are up in the air that usually means that they get fornicated with.
so dont do it!!!

Clint smith

Art Eatman
July 15, 2004, 11:26 PM
I've "enjoyed" a lot more of this thread than I can describe...

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Middle-aged lady disarmed during traffic stop--SOP???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!