First SD Use In Public

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a sister, brother, and uncle who are all police officers yet I still think negatively of cops more often then not.

This is the reason.
 
There is a lot of snap judgment of the police officers in this thread. As has been stated by multiple other posters, the primary concern when securing a scene is safety, not manners.

Considering police deaths in the line of duty spiked 40% in 2010 and continue on an upward trend, I completely understand that they are a little more jumpy these days.

The only problem I see is the officer that gave the gun lecture. That was inappropriate and a call to his superior is warranted, I think.
 
ObsidianOne said:
Wait, what? Pushing him to the ground with his foot and screaming at him after he had already tried to explain to the officer what happened, all the while (from what he said), he was being compliant while at gunpoint?
No, I don't think so. You don't push someone to the ground because you don't understand the situation for your safety if they are on their knees, hands behind their head, another officer is pointing a gun at them, and they've been there for some time. Especially since they don't even KNOW if there actually is a weapon.
That's a crock; it's a prime example of LEO with an ego and should not be tolerated.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right, but that doesn't mean they're any less likely to do so. Just because it's not right, and they shouldn't be doing so, doesn't mean they're any less likely to. A number of local officers here have treated people similarly for complaining about traffic violations or being drunk/high (but passive) in public, and gotten away with it. While I think the officer's actions were wrong, it's expected, just as much as it is that he did this while the actual criminal got away. I mean no disrepect to any officers here, I know there are plenty of honest, genuine people in law enforcement who wish to help the community, but these guys are everywhere, too, tiny reproductive organs and giant egos to compensate. I'm surprised the officer didn't press charges and let the actual criminal flee.
 
May have been easier if you had just shot him to stop the threat! You certainly had the right to in most states. And there would lay the body with the knife.

But you did fine. I echo that you should have holstered it sooner. And as long as you didn't touch the knife, just secured the scene, you're good to go. One other point is that you had good situational awareness of the guy, but what about your other surroundings? Of course your focus is on him, but always remember to watch your 6 too!

That is a bummer that cop 2 was such a jerk. Unfortunately you were treated like a criminal for awhile. Fortunately you have a sensible DA.
 
Last edited:
If you were responsible for the public safety and for the safety of your officers, and for the fiduciary matters associated with the liabilities of the community, just exactly how would you revise the procedure?
Click to expand...

Just one. Stop lecturing. They as LEOs have every right to secure the scene and make it safe. They have no right to lecture on gun safety. That's just as wrong as me accusing you of being an alcoholic because you have a beer in your fridge. It is/was an attempt to influence or intimidate someone by using a position of power.
 
Agreed. The cop was out of line on that one small point. We might be nitpicking a little.

I got pulled over once just so the punk in the cop car could give me a lecture about how unsafe it is for me to drive while eating a hamburger. Then he lied about me running a stop sign and wrote me a ticket for it. THAT is something to complain about.
 
Posted by MikeNice: However, he didn't tell me to get face down. He pushed me down with the sole of his boot. It wasn't a kick. It was unnecessary though.
Click to expand...
I can certainly see why you would think that.

However, some of the LEO members here and on The Firing Line tell us that putting the cuffs on someone is just about the most dangerous thing an officer does in a day's work, and that holding someone at gun point comes in second. Consider that both officers were most likely extremely concerned, and that the object of the second one in forcing you down was almost certainly to make it more difficult for you get to your weapon, or get control of his weapon, during the cuffing process.

I would be amazed if any review board in any department in the country were to find fault with either officer's actions--up to that point.

Now, you and I both know that putting cuffs on you did not present a danger, but no one on the scene had any way of knowing that.

Of course you would have preferred to have been treated a little more gently. Consider this, however: the police have responded to a report (or maybe two or more reports) of a man acting dangerously with a gun in his hand. Suppose that your reasonable demeanor caused them to "lighten up" on procedure, and you turned violent, and one or more persons were shot. How do you think the review board would treat the negligent officer then?

Regarding the "lecture" afterwards, however, I do not think it was proper. I personally would not take offense if it happened to me. If you want to call his superior, I suggest doing so in the most helpful possible manner, saying that your are doing so to give him the best possible feedback about the performance of the force.

Spend some time perusing the Our Journal articles on the Armed Citizen's Defense Network website. One comment that I noted was that the arriving officers just cannot see that halo that you and I know you wear.
 
I watch cop shows on tv and they treat just about everybody that way.
Just recently there was a guy getting his truck towed for missing handicap tag. He was handicapped though. He sat in the truck to keep it from getting towed and the tow truck driver called the cops.
The cops asked him to get out twice. He was explaining his Cade when they yanked the door open and flung him to the ground, hard! One cop pounced with his knee in his back, got cheek to cheek, and yelled at him to the top of his lungs. The cop overreacted big time! I see it too much!
Don't let them get away with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I think you should have stayed on the phone with the 911 operator until the police arrived. That may have made it more clear that you were a good guy, not a bad guy.

Other than that, I think the police officers behaved quite poorly, and I would talk to a lawyer about it. I would also file a complaint, but that will probably do you no good. A good lawyer though may be able to make more impact. The officer could have easily injured or killed you by kicking you in the back and knocking you forcefully to the ground. Additionally, you could suffer psychological problems as a result of the trauma the officers created. You may have future medical bills that at this time you can't even predict. A lawyer now could save you a lot of problems later.
 
Balrog said:
I think you should have stayed on the phone with the 911 operator until the police arrived. That may have made it more clear that you were a good guy, not a bad guy.

Other than that, I think the police officers behaved quite poorly, and I would talk to a lawyer about it. I would also file a complaint, but that will probably do you no good. A good lawyer though may be able to make more impact. The officer could have easily injured or killed you by kicking you in the back and knocking you forcefully to the ground. Additionally, you could suffer psychological problems as a result of the trauma the officers created. You may have future medical bills that at this time you can't even predict. A lawyer now could save you a lot of problems later.
Click to expand...
i dunno, that's a little much.

After thinking about it, I've decided it's probably not a good idea to cuss at the cops and tell them you've "secured the area" or the weapon or whatever. They're naturally going to think you are a nut if you do. you don't have the authority to secure anything.

Don't act/talk like you are some kind of cop wannabe. The dude that shot the guy that shot president kennedy was one of those, remember?
 
First of all, I want to caution members about veering this thread into a cop-bashing session. That's not where we are going here and no further drift in that direction will be tolerated. It is perfectly fine to discuss the totality of the incident in question here but it will be done objectively and unemotionally, period. Please let us all be clear on that point.


MikeNice, congratulations on handling your turn at the table very well. As trainer John Farnam often says - "When it's least expected, you're elected!" Despite being confronted by an unexpected assault, you thought quickly, got off the X by moving and using your full shopping cart as a barricade between you and the knife man, made a successful (even if not satisfactory to you) presentation of your carry piece from concealment, issued verbal commands to your assailant, continued to analyze the situation and make appropriate decisions as the situation changed, thought to preserve the evidence at the scene... did I miss any?

The aftermath might have gone a bit easier had you been the first to place a 9-1-1 call and stayed in contact with dispatch until officers arrived, but in total given the way things went, that's a relatively small tick in the other column for you. We so often caution members here in ST&T about making assumptions and then getting involved in other peoples' altercations based on appearances, or on inadequate or incorrect information and assumptions. Here we see that the same thing can happen to LEOs as well, based on incorrect or inadequate information they are given by dispatchers, and the outcome when that sort of thing happens even to LEOs can be less than optimum.

However, there is a major difference between LEOs and armed citizens - LEOs have an obligation to respond to unknown, unclear, and potentially dangerous situations, armed citizens do not. LEOs confront dangerous situations with unknown actors daily, and officer safety is an important concern for them.

It's something that armed citizens have to keep in mind at any time when dealing with LEOs. Being the subject of a 'man with a gun' call is not the best way to meet local LEOs on a typical workday. Things are certain to be very tense at the outset, and can get worse. In fact they do get worse in some really unfortunate situations - LEOs shoot other LEOs working undercover in some of those cases. Complying completely and quickly with any instructions from LEOs is vital, even when the LEOs in question don't understand the situation - and MikeNice definitely got that one right as well.

That's one more win for MikeNice in my book, even if the senior LEO on the scene didn't understand what had happened. It's not good that misunderstanding manifested itself the way it did, but it does happen sometimes. What was in that LEO's mind at the time I don't know, and if addressing the issue with that officer's supervisors is something MikeNice feels he needs to do, I certainly wouldn't argue with him on that count.

Many thanks to MikeNice for his willingness to share his experiences with us in their totality. I hope participating in the discussion here helps him deal with what happened. I would be remiss not to say that waiting to post those experiences until a legal all-clear had been received from the authorities was the correct thing to do as well. When members post stories without indicating that no legal action is pending, staff will as a rule move the thread to a non-public part of the board until the status of legal issues is settled.

lpl
 
I hope my comments were not misconstrued as cop bashing as that was not my intent. The officers may have responded entirely appropriately. I think having a lawyer on your side to present your case is in your best interest though. These matters are complicated, and it might be best to let a civil jury decide if the police officers responded appropriately, rather than take internet advice. That is not cop bashing, its a fair trial.
 
Balrog,

There were comments (now deleted) that were posted following yours that definitely were not High Road...

lpl
 
Posted by Lee Lapin: MikeNice, congratulations on handling your turn at the table very well. As trainer John Farnam often says - "When it's least expected, you're elected!" Despite being confronted by an unexpected assault, you thought quickly, got off the X by moving and using your full shopping cart as a barricade between you and the knife man, made a successful (even if not satisfactory to you) presentation of your carry piece from concealment, issued verbal commands to your assailant, continued to analyze the situation and make appropriate decisions as the situation changed, thought to preserve the evidence at the scene... did I miss any?
Click to expand...
Let me second that, enthusiastically.

It's not good that misunderstanding manifested itself the way it did, but it does happen sometimes. What was in that LEO's mind at the time I don't know, and if addressing the issue with that officer's supervisors is something MikeNice feels he needs to do, I certainly wouldn't argue with him on that count.
Click to expand...
Nor would I. Some responses here have suggested a complaint, which I don't think would help at all, but it would not hurt to open a discussion. I would caution that the supervisors may not be very open due to concerns about lawsuits, but one never knows.

Should anything helpful come out of it, I know we would all like to hear about it.

Many thanks to MikeNice for his willingness to share his experiences with us in their totality. I hope participating in the discussion here helps him deal with what happened.
Click to expand...
I'll second that motion, too. We should all have learned something from MikeNice's report here, not from anything that we think he did wrong, but from the fact that something like the unpleasantness of what unfolded just might be in store for any of us who might be unlucky enough to be in like circumstances.

Specifically, we can reasonably expect the arriving officers, who cannot know that we acted in the right, to assume that we are "good guys"--and they simply cannot take the chance of making that assumption; they will handle the scene in accordance with established procedure, and we will probably not like that very much; and things can be worse if what witnesses have reported put us an unfavorable light. Those things can happen, and frankly, unless police procedure has not been properly followed, there's not a lot we can do about it.

This report was probably valuable to us all in that regard. Yes, many of us "knew" all of this already; we've read Ayoob's accounts and those of Marty Hayes. However, I think it means a lot more hearing it directly from one of our members first hand. It dispels any thought along the lines of "this can't happen to me"
 
Kleanbore said:
You are obviously a whole lot more familiar with the training and procedures of the police department involved than I am.

Where I live, it is SOP--reviewed and approved by law enforcement professionals, and by the city attorneys.

A man has been reported to have been pointing a gun in different directions--an obvious situation of great concern. A policeman arrives and orders the suspect, reportedly armed and potentially dangerous, to his knees with his hands behind his head, but properly makes no attempt to secure him until help arrives. A second officer arrives and, covered by the first, immobilizes the suspect so that he can apply handcuffs safely, and he does so before securing the suspect's weapon. And that is the time the suspect should be listening and complying, not talking.

If you were responsible for the public safety and for the safety of your officers, and for the fiduciary matters associated with the liabilities of the community, just exactly how would you revise the procedure?
Click to expand...
No need for sarcasm, I'm simply saying one does not deserve to be brutalized because a LEO can't figure out what's going on.
It's "innocent until proven guilty", not "smashing compliant suspects into asphault until I can figure out what's going on".
I'm sure you'd be singing a totally different tune if your wife or kid (if you have either, if not mother, father, family member etc.) were booted to the ground after they got on their knees, had no visible weapon, and had their hands on their head.
I know everyone on THR is familiar with the slippery slope problems, why not make it SOP to use tazers and mace to subdue any suspect, regardless of their compliance?
I'm all for officers making sure they're safe, as they are doing us all a great service by protecting, but from the sound of OP's description, someone had an ego trip and thought he was bringing down a big bad gunman.

I've dealt with LEOs in similar situations where I was accused of doing something that I wasn't even involved in due to an officer arriving on scene, not bothering to find out from the other officers already in charge of the situation and making assumptions.I just happened to be a bystander, and I don't like the abuse of power.
Please don't mistake me for "cop bashing" as I have a deep respect and appreciation for LEOs and my hat is off to them putting themselves in the line of fire to protect and serve, but again, I think that the department, at the very least should be notified of the lack of situational awareness, rational reaction, and general disrespect of a law abiding citizen, not to shame him or mark his jacket, but to correct his actions so that this mistake isn't made again.

I realize that we are taking a different route in the conversation that is not the topic of discussion and I will respectfully end my comments regarding this matter here.

Out of everything, like others have said, I'm glad you're safe, no body had to be shot, and the worst thing that happened is you ate some asphalt for a few minutes. Who would have thought a shopping cart would save your life, eh? :)
 
Last edited:
The conduct of the officers isn't the issue here. That's a separate question and more appropriate for the legal forum. Focusing on the incident and the OP's actions, there are qa number of useful lessons learned that we all can benefit from.

You already know your weapon should have been holstered as soon as you were safe. This helps keep onlookers from calling in well after the fact and reporting a "Man with a gun".

You already know you shouldn't attempt to secure the scene, handle evidence or act as anything other than the victim of a violent crime. Regardless of how irrelivent some factor seems it could be of value to the officers. They'll secure the scene and handle the evidence, just focus on your safety.

I'll add that you need to be on the phone with 911 from the first moment all the way to the time the first officer arrives so you can establish you are the good guy with the 911 dispatcher and have that communicated with the arriving officers.
 
I think you did an outstanding job. I'm glad everything turned out fine.

I am actually slightly against the grain here and I don't necessarily think you holstered your gun to late. Unless there are LEO's around I will not be in a rush to reholster my weapon. If I was in the similar situation I would scan the area immediately after I know the threat is gone. I'd do my 360 degree scan in position SUL or something similar where the gun will not be "roaming" around such as a low ready position. Someone not familiar with firearms do not understand that this is a ready position and not some guy point is gun all around the place. I know that isn't what you did, but again that someone who is unfamiliar with firearms will surely be the one calling 911 and telling their side of the story. With that said I understand the purpose of trying to be the first to call 911, however, I think it's FAR more important to properly scan the area to make sure there aren't anymore threats.

I'm also not surprised on the initial response by the LEO's. If I was in their position and not absolutely 100% you were the victim they need to follow protocol. All it takes is that one in a million chance they thought that someone was the good guy but in fact he/she wasn't. If that happened that mistake may cost them going back home to their family and that's not acceptable.

Again, great job and stay safe!
 
I still look at it from the cop's point of view. If you arrive on-scene where there has been a violent encounter, there is only one guy there, and he tells you he is the good guy, can you afford to just take him at his word before you know anything about what happened? If he shows up, the guy says, "Hey, I'm a good guy," they shrug and turn their backs on him, and one of them gets shot, what reasoning will make sense to their boss and the widow? "But he TOLD ME he was a GOOD GUY!"

If I ever draw or fire in public in a defensive encounter, I fully expect to be cuffed and face-down on the ground for a while. I expect the officers to be cautious in my defense, it is unreasonable to expect them to not do it the rest of the time.
 
If I ever draw or fire in public in a defensive encounter, I fully expect to be cuffed and face-down on the ground for a while.
Click to expand...

Its a shame that this is what our society has become.
 
Originally Posted by Balrog
Its a shame that this is what our society has become.
Ditto.
Click to expand...
You know, that comment seems to me to indicate that there is a belief among some either that (1) the arriving officers have a way of somehow divining who is a "good guy" by simple observation, or (2) that there is a reasonable alternative to their immediately and effectively securing the scene after a shooting takes place, or (3) that the officers can afford the risk of assuming that the shooter does not constitute an immediate threat to public safety before getting on with their investigation.

How realistic are any of those ideas?

Let's think together about what mljdeckard said that seems to upset people:

If I ever draw or fire in public in a defensive encounter, I fully expect to be cuffed and face-down on the ground for a while. I expect the officers to be cautious in my defense, it is unreasonable to expect them to not do it the rest of the time.
Click to expand...

Now that certainly does sound rather harsh, but realistically, what else would one expect under many circumstances? Someone has shot someone, and witnesses whose attention was drawn to the incident only by the sound of the shot point that out. Wouldn't the facts then known indicate a high risk to the officers and to public safety? Can the officers reasonably ignore that risk?

I live in a large metropolitan area, and the adjacent city has the highest violent crime rate in the country. We are in a must issue state. Self defense shootings are in the news with greater frequency than ever before--but almost all of them seem to have occurred in homes or in businesses.

The number of outdoor self defense shootings that have been in the news in the last two years can be counted on the fingers of one hand with enough digits left over for texting, but the number of unjustified homicides approaches 500 per year.

From that, it would seem to me that the likelihood that a person who has shot someone is a violent criminal actor is hundreds of times higher than the likelihood that he happens to be a "good guy".

So, isn't it just prudent for the officers to immediately make sure that a shooter does not present an serious threat before doing anything else?

Is there a safe way to do that that does not involve putting the cuffs on him? Is there a safe way to put the cuffs on a violent criminal that does not involve putting him on the ground?

Has any of that changed much in recent years?

We had a shooting incident yesterday in which someone fired a gun in a cell phone store. When the manager presented his weapon, the perp fled. As he ran down the street, he was encountered by a police officer who had no idea of what had transpired--he just saw a man holding a gun near a car.

The only reason that the officer did not shoot is because he could not get a clear shot, but he did manage to disarm the perp and put him on the ground.

I'm not tying to argue here. I don't like the idea of being put on the ground, either. I'm just trying to think it through, and it seems to me that mljdeckard is simply being realistic.

I'm interested in the views of our LEO members, but anyone's comment is welcome.

By the way, I'm not entirely sure that MikeNice's encounter involved the same clear and present danger as a shooting or a man with gun in hand, particularly because he had holstered the gun before the police arrived, but I suggest that we do not know enough about what happened behind the scenes and with the 911 operator to comment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
almost drew my gun yesterday
2 3
Replies
61
Views
3K
TEXMEX
T
T
  • Locked
This is why I break the rules.
2 3
Replies
52
Views
5K
Lupinus
L
G
  • Locked
Called the police yesterday
2 3
Replies
72
Views
5K
Faitmaker
F
D
  • Locked
Had an unusal incident this morning
Replies
6
Views
1K
MudPuppy
M
N
  • Locked
I need to get my carry permit or the I'm tried of being followed thread
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
3K
Fred Fuller
F
Back
Top