Follow up to: "Should you ever admit you are carrying?"

[9MMare]

Do you render this "courtesy" to others. If not, why not?

I have never understood why this is considered a 'courtesy.'

No matter what a person says, I believe (and as a park ranger have made car stops) that you always have to presume they could be lying...and treat all with the same caution.

 

[9MMare]

The jury did not believe that the evidence presented to them showed, beyond reasonable doubt, that there had been "no reason".

The officer claimed, under oath, that he believed he saw a gun in the driver's hand. Of course, he had to say that, true or not.

The jury chose to believe him. That's unfortunate *IMO*.

 

[9MMare]

I'm not going to argue the point. Informing a LEO is a courtesy I extend to my community.

But I would like to understand why. And how it is a 'courtesy?'

 

[9MMare]

Here's an example of why it's beneficial to both parties to inform, courtesy aside.








If you happen to like this kind of potential drama, regardless of whether there's an overzealous/anxious cop, then by all means don't say anything.

As if that cop would have reacted any better if he had informed?

 

[9MMare]

I feel pretty certain that I've seen jurisdictions where you are supposed to get out of the vehicle when stopped, although I cannot currently come up with any proof searching the internet. Maybe someone else will chime in.

What? I would like to know if there is any such thing in the US. Lord knows, I dont check that when I travel to other states (and I dont carry when I go out of state)

 

[wojownik]

Why not to others?

You're as much of a threat (if not moreso) to a girl behind the counter at 7-11 at 3:00am as you are to a cop at 3:00pm on main street.

Assuming that you don't plan to shoot him, but notify, assuming you don't plan to shoot her, why not notify her as well?

Do you disclose to the girl behind the counter at McDonald's? By company policy she doesn't even have any means to defend herself if you were to decide to take her and the rest of the night crew in back and shoot them, as happened in NYC.

The 7-11 and McDonalds examples are false analogies, and just argumentative. A traffic stop is an investigative detention where your are being detained, not where you are walking into a store to buy some beef jerky. This means that you do not have the same full set of rights that you do under other/normal circumstances. You are not free to leave, and the officer MAY at his discretion take steps for his safety (and yours) for the duration of the encounter. He is investigating an infraction, and until he A) releases you B) gives you a citation and says you're free to leave or C) arrests you, you are legally detained and must comply with his directives.

Now, its your call (pursuant to local laws) whether or not you should volunteer information about whether you are carrying. And how LEOs behave may be influenced a lot by circumstances - location, time of day, general demeanor, appearances, etc. For example, while you aren't obligated to notify in Virginia, your encounter may go better if you do in Northern Virginia. And may not go as well in some other areas, like Norfolk. In Virginia, if you are stopped, they'll know you have a carry permit just by running your plates. And they do appreciate (again in the Northern VA experience) the honesty of telling them you have a permit, and that you are carrying.

Open carry while driving is a bit of a different conundrum. Some folks I know who do OC when driving are of the firm belief that informing the officer immediately during a traffic stop will avoid a lot of hassle, particularly if the officer is not informed - then the balance might be tipped when he does notice the firearm and concludes that it was sufficiently obsured so as to have been "hidden from common observation" --> arrest. Not a hypothetical e.g. where the handgun is OC, but pressed between your body and the seat and now has become effectively "hidden." But these cases seem to almost always be an add-on charge, when they've got you for doing something else.

 

[Deanimator]

The 7-11 and McDonalds examples are false analogies, and just argumentative. A traffic stop is an investigative detention where your are being detained, not where you are walking into a store to buy some beef jerky. This means that you do not have the same full set of rights that you do under other/normal circumstances. You are not free to leave, and the officer MAY at his discretion take steps for his safety (and yours) for the duration of the encounter. He is investigating an infraction, and until he A) releases you B) gives you a citation and says you're free to leave or C) arrests you, you are legally detained and must comply with his directives.

...ALL of which is COMPLETELY irrelevant to VOLUNTARY notification rendered as a so-called "courtesy".

"Courtesies" have NOTHING to do with "investigative detentions".

That being the case, why render this "courtesy" to one and not the other?

 

[Kleanbore]

The jury chose to believe him. That's unfortunate *IMO*.

Why?

 

[wojownik]

I did not use the word "courtesy." I am not using that frame of reference.

If you are stopped, you are under an investigative detention. In this case, it makes sense to me to disclose lawful carry of a weapon for two reasons:

- I see this as a safety measure for both parties - PO already knows I have a CHP (by running my plates), I am simply letting him know whether I happen to be carrying or not.
- It is a disclosure that may be perceived as a token of honesty. So far, in ALL interactions I have had with the police, the disclosure has been received with appreciation.

This is how I have proceeded in my part of the country. So far, my dealings with LEOs have been extremely courteous and professional (and frankly have gone a LOT better than my interactions before having a CHP).

 

[Deanimator]

I did not use the word "courtesy." I am not using that frame of reference.

And the person to whom I responded DID.

If you are stopped, you are under an investigative detention. In this case, it makes sense to me to disclose lawful carry of a weapon for two reasons:

- I see this as a safety measure for both parties - PO already knows I have a CHP (by running my plates), I am simply letting him know whether I happen to be carrying or not.
- It is a disclosure that may be perceived as a token of honesty. So far, in ALL interactions I have had with the police, the disclosure has been received with appreciation.

This is how I have proceeded in my part of the country. So far, my dealings with LEOs have been extremely courteous and professional (and frankly have gone a LOT better than my interactions before having a CHP).

Unless it's statutorily required (as it unfortunately is here) or there's IMMINENT likelihood that the firearm will be exposed to view, it has NOTHING to do with safety.

And even here, if I'm not carrying I have NO duty to inform him of ANYTHING. And I do not intend to.

I have a duty to obey the LAW, nothing more.

And by the way, I've been stopped for a pure pretext based fishing expedition justified by an after the fact lie. That's NOT an "investigative detention". It's misconduct.

 

[salt&battery]

Why?

because he killed him for no reason so he had to lie under oath and make up a reason

 

[Kleanbore]

because he killed him for no reason so he had to lie under oath and make up a reason

Do you know of evidence that was not presented to the jury?

 

[salt&battery]

Do you know of evidence that was not presented to the jury?

you know the guy is going to lie and he did because nothing would happen to him. degenerate DA's have to work with cops so they will try to keep good will. but you know all that and are playing dumb. juries have watched to many cop movies for the last 45 years

 

[Old Dog]

you know the guy is going to lie and he did because nothing would happen to him. degenerate DA's have to work with cops so they will try to keep good will. but you know all that and are playing dumb. juries have watched to many cop movies for the last 45 years

As have too many internet discussion forum posters ... almost as though most believe flicks such as "Training Day" and "Copland" are accurate characterizations of all police officer behavior.

 

[bassjam]

The first time I was pulled over and was carrying (and informed the officer as such) I didn’t pull out my wallet prior to him coming to the window. When I informed him I needed to reach into my back pocket to get my wallet and he told me to go ahead and do so, I saw him unsnap the latch on his holster and he placed his hand on the grip of his side arm. That was pretty scary and the reason I now always get my stuff ready before hand.

But of course when I do get my stuff ready, I’ve been grilled a couple times about why I “looked like I was searching for something inside the vehicle”. I now make sure my insurance card is very easy to access in my center console, and I do my best not to lean too much when getting out my wallet to cut down on my motions and it seems to help.

Twice I’ve informed I was carrying and already had my wallet and proof of insurance on the dash, and the traffic stop went without further mention of the firearm.

Twice I’ve informed the officer I was carrying and already had my wallet on the dash, and the officer asked me to hand him my gun for him to run the serial number. Another time I was asked to remove my firearm it and lay it on the seat next to me. All 3 times I’ve moved VERY slowly and spoke to him the entire time about my movements. i.e. “I’m going to reach into my right pocket for my handgun.”

Once I forgot to inform the officer, and he didn’t ask. But this guy was being a complete @$$ and actually made my wife and 6 year old daughter cry so I’m kind of glad I forgot to mention I was carrying.

2 times I was not carrying and had to come back to the cruiser for a statement. Once was when the driver I was with hit a deer, and the other time I was the designated driver and the officer wanted to make sure I wasn’t drinking too as the truck reeked of alcohol. Both times the officer asked if I had any weapons, and when I responded I had a pocket knife I was told to raise my arms while the officer reached into my pocket and took out the knife. That was kind of weird.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

This morning my hometown paper carried this story:
Jesse J. Holland, "Black gun owners worried by acquittal in Castile shooting", Associated Press, 17 Jun 2017.
http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2017/T...un-owners/id-3d2028acd67e49caa9f69f7ec6673c01
Like most newspaper stories, they carried so many inches of the story, cutting off at the paragraph "... Ector said." All the news that fits.

 

[Kleanbore]

you know the guy is going to lie and he did because nothing would happen to him. degenerate DA's have to work with cops so they will try to keep good will. but you know all that and are playing dumb. juries have watched to many cop movies for the last 45 years

We can take that answer as "no".

 

[climbnjump]

There have been a number of posts disparaging the jury for letting the officer "off the hook", so to speak. But it might be helpful to remember that juries operate under well defined rules - they don't get to make up their own as they go along.

The jury's responsibility is not to convict or acquit a defendant of "overreacting", "being too jumpy", "acting stupidly" or whatever.

The jury's responsibility is to determine - based on the evidence presented to them during trial - whether or not the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the actual charges brought against him. In this case, the charges against the officer included one count of second-degree manslaughter and two felony accounts of dangerous discharge of a firearm.

Given the legal definition of the crime of second-degree manslaughter, the jury foreman said that they spent considerable time dissecting what elements of the crime needed to be present in order to convict. And they found some elements lacking in the prosecution's case.

In fact, 10 of the 12 members of the jury voted to acquit only hours after the start of deliberation. The two holdouts finally joined the other 10 on the fourth day.

So it you want to blame someone for the officer being acquitted, then perhaps you might want to blame the County Attorney for bringing charges that couldn't ultimately be proven, or blame the prosecuting attorneys for failing to bring evidence to support the charges.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Too much heat and not enough light.