Another reason not to reveal to LEO

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just a simple reminder of that any gun if you don't follow basic safety rules you can have a ND.

and this guy was playing around too much with the gun, as it went off, which is hard to do with a revolver without doing something VERY dumb.

Revolvers are better for a lot of folks, but doesn't mean you need to check out your brain at the door.
 
Texasrifleman, you are being very supportive of officers, maybe you have been one.

Eh, I generally dislike cops but if a fellow human being who was not currently in combat with me shot himself in the leg I'd try to help him and worry about the paint on my car later.

But hey, you want to watch him bleed to death then try to explain that later when his fellow officers show up, good luck with that.
 
texasrifleman, I would agree with you if an officer shot himself with his own gun while reaching for something or something caught the trigger (even if it was his finger). I would help any way I could.

I feel a little different if he has shot himself after taking my gun from me. It gets personal then. But, I have to admit that I would still probably try to help if he wanted me to.

You see, the problem is that they have positioned themselves somewhat like the enemy of the general public. It isn't just criminals that have to worry about officers. Many officers want to make criminals of everyone they stop.
 
I feel a little different if he has shot himself after taking my gun from me. It gets personal then. But, I have to admit that I would still probably try to help if he wanted me to.

Sure, I'd hate him too, but I'd not let that interfere with MY moral obligation to help him. 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that stuff we learned in Kindergarten. I certainly wouldn't have my car paint job at the top of my worry list. I'd be MUCH more worried that if he died there on the spot his buddies would think I shot him SINCE THE BULLET IN HIS LEG WOULD BE FROM MY GUN :)

Think about that for a second.

"Officer Officer! Your fellow officer here dead by my car shot himself with my gun!!"

Yeah, that's gonna sell.....
 
ok guys, so lets come to an agreement (or not mebbe)

Th OP was "a good reason not to inform"...
agreed this is another good reason or no
just wanted to direct back to the reasoning and the original post :D
 
I wonder what would have happened if the LEO had accidently shot himself fatally ? Imagine being that woman standing on the side of the road with a with a dead leo shot with her gun ? I would like to know the details because i will be driving through Martin county on friday ! Kevin
 
I wonder what would have happened if the LEO had accidently shot himself fatally ? Imagine being that woman standing on the side of the road with a with a dead leo shot with her gun ? I would like to know the details because i will be driving through Martin county on friday ! Kevin

Wow, good point. With no witnesses, she'd be in trouble. Even if it could be shown that the officer's prints were on the gun and the trajectory of the shot indicated he had been holding it when it discharged, I'd hate to be in her shoes.
 
Upon further review, I've concluded that the title of this thread ("Another reason not to reveal to LEO") may be totally invalid.

This, from the TCPalm News:
Rhonda Irons, sheriff's office media relations spokesmen, said Foote had been called to the condominium complex because of allegations of aggravated battery between two residents.

"In the process," Irons said, "he asked if anyone of the people involved had a firearm.

One woman said she did and it was in the trunk of her car. He went to get it and it went off."

You'd better believe if a cop is questioning a possible suspect in an aggravated battery case that he/she has every right to ask if anyone involved has a firearm on/near the scene. Even an alleged victim -- assault victims have routinely demonstrated a willingness to exact retribution, even in front of responding LEOs.

I am by no means attempting to defend the possibility of ignorant or unsafe handling in this case, but don't even claim this is a case where someone necessarily should have kept their mouth shut about having a firearm.
 
I am by no means attempting to defend the possibility of ignorant or unsafe handling in this case, but don't even claim this is a case where someone necessarily should have kept their mouth shut about having a firearm.

Yeah that certainly changes things drastically in this case but still, never talk to the cops :)
 
was she operating the vehicle?

"Do you have any guns" is a question I'm not likely to answer if I don't need to considering yet another additional episode of poor police handling of firearms. But that being said... To inform an officer while in your vehicle and have this happen. nah.. I'll just avoid the whole scenario. No longer do I inform police of my firearm since my personal experience and especially since reading this and WyoCarp's experience. That way all the dangerous objects are out of reach of those who (for my right to go home safely) I'm going to have to assume are incompetent to handle them.

Funny anecdotal thing about my stop is that the SCHP handed me my LOADED AND CHAMBERED FIREARM back butt end first ... SO if safety was the issue... Ahh I give up... you can't reason with people who feel they are better than you or "the only ones qualified to ... BANG"!
 
was she operating the vehicle?
No bearing whatsoever in this case.

No longer do I inform police of my firearm since my personal experience and especially since reading this and WyoCarp's experience.
Yes, by all means, good luck with that, the next time you're interviewed as a possible assault suspect or victim.

Once again, a clear demonstration that many here will continue propagating their own agenda even when their issues have no connection with an actual thread's story and when confronted with facts or logic.
 
and here comes sour grapes

sorry dog

"Yes, by all means, good luck with that, the next time you're interviewed as a possible assault suspect or victim."

No duty to inform in my state if not on my person, so I'll have plenty of luck with it. Incidentally now that it is NOT in my pocket but in my console I found it is faster to retrieve. But since ignorance is bliss and the officers perception of safety from a licensed CWP holder driving a minivan over a 25$ ticket for a seatbelt, anyway, I'll let him be happy and ignorant and keep his fumbling hands off of my firearms. But by all means tell me all about YOUR right to go home safely while ignoring mine. Or the "FACTS", as you eloquently put it, that police are no better at handling firearms despite all the touted "training" than others and we must be wary of others handling our firearms at all times. Slap a badge on em and fallacy just vanishes away eh? There's some "logic" right? Really? Yikes!
 
Yes, by all means, good luck with that, the next time you're interviewed as a possible assault suspect or victim.

I gotta say that again this is one of those times when talking to the cops is a bad idea. If you are under investigation for assault you sure shouldn't be answering any questions that don't involve asking for a lawyer.
 
I am typically loathe to second guess a fellow LEO's actions, but there are only a few reasons that I could see for going into a closed trunk to get a pistol:
1) to verify that the firearm is actually in the trunk, not under the driver's seat. This can be done visually, however.
2) to ensure that the weapon is not a prohibited or illegally owned one (is it the .38 she said it was or is it a full auto Mac-10?). Generally this can also be done visually, but in states (like mine) requiring a permit for a handgun the LEO may need to handle the weapon to check it's serial number.
3) if it is illegal in that state to transport a loaded weapon. In this case the LEO may have to handle the weapon to unload it but, if he/she is unfamiliar with the weapon, it is not immediately necessary and can wait until someone with more familiarity arrives on scene.
4) the "trunk" is actually a hatchback, or can be accessed by the occupants of the vehicle. In this case, it is a judgment call to remove the weapon or remove the occupants. Both have pros and cons and either is tactically acceptable based on the LEO's knowledge of his own strengths/capabilities.

In MY opinion, based on professional experience but few details on this specific incident, a weapon in a trunk is not an immediate threat. Unless a visual inspection proves it to be an illegal weapon or circumstances lead you to believe it is stolen, handling the weapon appears to be unnecessary. Short of the 'cocked, loaded revolver loose in the trunk and snagging on something' scenario, I don't see how a weapon that was handled safely would AD and strike him in the leg. I am glad that no one was killed, and hope that this motivates this Department's firearms training instructor to start reviewing the BASICS of safe firearm handling, stress that these principles apply OUTSIDE of the range, and go over the proper unloading of a variety of common weapons--many officers, especially those in non-gun states, have had no exposure to different weapon systems beyond the one they carry. It is foolish to ASSUME that someone with no prior weapons exposure would instinctively know how to unload a revolver when the only thing they've ever touched is a semi-auto.

As far as all LEOs being highly trained weapons users...sadly I have to concur that I've seen some of my brethren do STUPID things with a gun (just as I've seen potentially fatal things done by civilians at the range). I've also seen plumbers that set fire to homes while soldering pipes, mechanics that "forgot" to put brake fluid or oil back in the car they were working on, and other people who have done their jobs poorly due to stupidity, carelessness or lack of training. Unfortunately, when that person is an LEO, the papers are quick to jump on the story and people (even some of the people here) are equally quick to jump on the "let's bash LEOs" bandwagon.
 
No duty to inform in my state if not on my person, so I'll have plenty of luck with it. Incidentally now that it is NOT in my pocket but in my console I found it is faster to retrieve. But since ignorance is bliss and the officers perception of safety from a licensed CWP holder driving a minivan over a 25$ ticket for a seatbelt, anyway, I'll let him be happy and ignorant and keep his fumbling hands off of my firearms.
Uh, yo, deaconkharma, we're talking about being interviewed in connection with aggravated battery, which is a violent assault, NOT a traffic stop for violation of your local vehicle code.

And just to recount a story -- I once responded to a stabbing call, where the victim's young gangbanger buddies rolled up on the scene with a car full of firearms, ready to extract some vengeance, in spite of a pretty massive law enforcement presence.
 
You'd better believe if a cop is questioning a possible suspect in an aggravated battery case that he/she has every right to ask if anyone involved has a firearm on/near the scene. Even an alleged victim -- assault victims have routinely demonstrated a willingness to exact retribution, even in front of responding LEOs.

I am by no means attempting to defend the possibility of ignorant or unsafe handling in this case, but don't even claim this is a case where someone necessarily should have kept their mouth shut about having a firearm.
You don't have to answer the question, and it is an example of what could go wrong if you do voluntarily inform, or you could have some ignorant cop point a gun at your chest while disarming you.
 
the title of the thread was "another reason to not inform LEO"

I would say this directly applies in the case mentioned as well as the aforementioned situation of battery. If you aren't in your car and the car is not involved why volunteer info? The firearm wasn't on the person.

The main question and reasoning (OP correct me if I'm wrong) was to show that the reasons not to inform LEO. More specifically, not to inform due to disarmament by someone not qualified to even handle the weapon. So I feel it is quite pertinent to traffic stops.

that being said...Given the individual situation of the story since we want to redirect focus only on this one scenario rather than take the obvious correlations: Why inform? Is the firearm on your person? Do you have a duty to inform if the firearm is in your house five blocks down the road? 100 yds away in a locked trunk? even though YOU are under the control of the officer which pretty much precludes you leaving his "custody" to go get said firearm and come back and hurt him? C'mon that's reaching a bit. Was he going to search her car anyway? Was she interacting with her car? Or did she just volunteer info that if she hadn't otherwise would have left the firearm in a safe spot rather than withdrawn aimed at self and CAUSED to discharge.
I think in either the traffic stop scenario or this one with some LEO mindsets seemingly shifting to disarmament, "less said is best said".
Unless you LEO's want to start putting a tag on that says CWP holders are ok in my book, and I won't take your gun... I'm not gettign disarmed or having unsafe handling of my firearm anymore, sorry. The badge doesn't come with super powers or even IQ enhancing qualities. And worse yet remedial firearms qualification with duty weapon once a year. I think most if not all CWP holders practice more than that in a month.
 
You'd better believe if a cop is questioning a possible suspect in an aggravated battery case that he/she has every right to ask if anyone involved has a firearm on/near the scene. Even an alleged victim -- assault victims have routinely demonstrated a willingness to exact retribution, even in front of responding LEOs.
even the latest verison of the story does not claim the woman who owned the gun was a suspect in a crime.

interesting how what was called an assault case in the first story cited went to being aggravated battery in the second. and in neither does it say the gun owner was a suspect.

but we all know how rigorous newspaper stories tend to be.
 
One more case of LEO doing the wrong thing

I have seen much of this conversation, and read with amusement. Some think it's necessary to defend deputy Fife, er.. Foote for his accidental discharge. But he needs no defending; the press seem quite capable of doing that for him.
No, we don't know why, but he CHOSE to remove a gun from a secure place. And after all, he knows best, so who am I do disagree. Then somehow, through some Deus ex Machina, the firearm discharged itself into him. We are all fortunate that no one was charged for this discharge.
This sort of crap is the problem. Around 18 months ago, a construction worker in Bluffton, SC opened fire in the workplace, eventually taking his own life. He was the only armed person on the scene. This was commented upon by the Bluffton Police Chief. He was quoted as saying that he felt safer knowing that 'the only guns around belong to the police".
Well, now we see (once again) just how ignorant and short-sighted such a ridiculous statement can be. The only one with the guns in that story was Deputy Foote. And he was fortunate that he was the only one injured.
Imagine had he fired and injured or killed the 'civilian'. It would somehow have been construed to be him defending himself from an attacker.
Just thank God that this deputy was not from Richland County! Imagine the damage from Leon Lott's Monster Truck Rally when THAT gun 'accidentally discharges itself!'
Keep the Faith Brothers!
The Rev
 
Deputy Foote is probably an officer young enough that he doesn't go back to when cops all carried S&W revolvers in .38 Special. He probably went through the academy training with a Glock and he probably carries a Glock (or some other plastic fantastic) on duty and doesn't play with guns off duty. My guess is that he had no clue how to handle a revolver ... and set out to prove it conclusively.
 
Yeah, I have a general policy of not allowing total strangers to handle my guns. A man with a blue uniform and a badge does not modify my general policy. Unfortunately, with cops, the only feasible way to maintain my general policy is not to reveal my gun unless necessary.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top