I would agree that a change in policy would be in order IF but it is not the norm at all any where in this country. And again holstered or in hand whats the diffrence if some one feels threatened enough to call 911 it must be investigated again for liability reasons. Besides in you example of OC and the norm, folks likely would not call for just seeing a gun
Friend got harassed by the police for OC
- Thread starter chris in va
- Start date
- Status
I don't generally get into the open carry issues; it's not an option where I live anyway. I do feel the urge to respond here, though.
If you dispatched a unit based on the complaint of man with a gun, the responding officer would be too late to do a thing if the gun owner had bad intentions. The police would, as is their custom, get there in time to take pictures of the mess.
A person exercising their rights should not have to show that it is legal for them to exercise those rights. The assumption should always be that they have the right unless something suggests otherwise. That's one of the other amendments that seems to get forgotten: the 4th.
VARifleman
Member
Actually..no you wouldn't. This has been decided in court many times.
It is a waste of resources to send someone out to investigate a legal activity. Back when Tony's Pizza happened, it came out that there were ACTUAL CRIMES that weren't responded to immediately BECAUSE the officers were dispatched to investigate a group of guys that were following the law.
I fixed what I think was an error in your post, based on the context as I understood it. Is that correct?
You aren't trying to say that the police should investigate seemingly legal behavior to ensure that there is no illegal behavior going on behind the scenes, are you? Wouldn't that be called a police state?
For the first part this may be the case but none the less the dispatch atleast put the call out.
I agree with the second part but again we in the dispatch center can only take calls we can not determin legality.
I will say this, there is common sense applied to all this stuff too. We wont put a call out for some things, "my neighbor has a gun in his yard taking pictures of the deer he killed today" would be a good example(I personaly took that call last year)
And thanks for fixing my post it was a type-o on my part. Stick around there are plenty I do.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
the cops here responded to 60 shots fired calls from the new neighbor from jersey before she got used to the hunt club with 3000 acres across the river
kcshooter
Member
Read closer.
Yes, in your example, the cops responded to a non-crime. In the example set forward to which I responded, the subject did indeed commit a crime, but the dispatcher decided not to send a cop to even have a look until after the shooting started. If you think that doesn't equate to liability enough for a few folks to lose their jobs, you're kidding yourself.
Stevie-Ray
Member
I would say the same as the difference between a holstered CCW and a gun in the hand. You're saying the same thing as printing when you carry concealed. In that case the call would be I think a man has a gun. Feeling threatened because you saw what might be the imprint of a gun, or because you saw a gun on someone's hip, both of which otherwise seem normal, equates to nuisance calls, IMO. In shall issue + OC states, it should be the dispatcher's opinion also.
VARifleman
Member
No, kcshooter, you're ignoring case law, which I pointed out to you, but you ignored it.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
what case law do you imagine applies here.
VARifleman
Member
The most notable being a call from 3 women getting raped in an apartment, called multiple times, and no one came out. If the cops weren't liable then, they CERTAINLY wouldn't be liable for coming out for a holstered gun call. That's just crazy talk.
Warren v. DC, CS.
Warren v. DC, CS.
StevieRay I have read this 3 times and I dont understand what your saying(I am tired)but I will say this.
Folks its not my rules it is my responsibility for the job I do right now. I dont agree with everything about it but it is what it is. All complaints have to be investigated they are prioritized but they are all looked into, regardless of time and circumstances, well execpt for obvious common sense things like the guy taking pictures with his rifle next to the deer he shot earlier in the day. Or there is a man with a gun in the feild down the road, well whats he doing? hunting? ok no problem forward complaint to game warden where they choose to ignore or investigate it. Just a couple of examples.
Big Daddy Grim
Member
Does anybody by chance know where open carry is allowed I only know for my State. Just wondering how many states allow it.
kcshooter
Member
They were dispatched in the warren case, however they were dispatched improperly and responded improperly. It really isn't the same thing. Thereby not really case law. Thereby doesn't really apply. There's not set precedence here, and it would end up going into a court because of that if it were taken that far.
It doesn't matter, however, as I never said that anyone would be charged with anything, just that jobs would be lost. Again, read closer.
It doesn't matter, however, as I never said that anyone would be charged with anything, just that jobs would be lost. Again, read closer.
VARifleman
Member
Except dispatchers send out police to legal OC calls like Tony's Pizza or Chet's incident and don't send cops to actual crimes. We've shown this after Tony's, yet you and CS, and KCS, don't want to consider that. You're talking about liability, yet you think it's perfectly ok to dispatch officers to a non-crime when there are actual crimes going on?
Pretty soon criminals are going to start OCing once they find out its legal, if a cop stops - them all they have to say is that they are OCing, even a felon could be OCing and the police would not know.
CCW permits have the purpose of weeding out people who shouldn't be able to do something from doing it, or at least not giving them a usable explanation when a cop stops them.
Guns have the intended purpose of killing things, I see no reason to openly display that object to anyone else.
CCW permits have the purpose of weeding out people who shouldn't be able to do something from doing it, or at least not giving them a usable explanation when a cop stops them.
Guns have the intended purpose of killing things, I see no reason to openly display that object to anyone else.
kcshooter
Member
You aren't getting it. I'm not stating this is how I feel it should be or shouldn't be, I have no side on this issue as I never, ever open carry. I can if I want to, but I choose to conceal. So this is completely a non-issue for me.
I'm telling you how it actually is, and that how it is may not align with either how it should be or how you want it.
The reality of the situation is this:
There are many people terrified by any weapons they see. These people will call the police if they seen you wearing a gun. The police will come out and investigate, whether it is to stop and pester you or just to see you with their own eyes and "profile" you.
This isn't anything but a simple explanation of the process. Whether or not the process is right is not what I'm trying to argue.
HMM VaRifleman I think this is a case where we are all talking about diffrent things based on the same subject. The Dispatch can only do what their sop says to do. If they act with in those confines they are not liable.
Cs and KCS VAR has a point that it can be a flawed system due to manning issues that all locations have from time to time. If you hav x amount of officers and X+5 calls your 5 calls short so some one is getting a longer responce. Just the way it is no locality will ever get away from it.
They must not be quick learners where you are.
You're kidding, right? You believe that all guns should be licensed and registered? Only licensed and approved people should be allowed to possess a gun? Perhaps only approved people should be alowed to vote as well? And maybe it is ok to search without a warrant unless the person being searched has a no-search card? If I want to PM you on the Brady forums, what user name do you use there?
VARifleman
Member
KCS, I don't care what people say the norm is, it's still NOT normal to have the cops called on your for OC in VA. It just doesn't happen all that often for how many people do it. You may not know this being halfway across the country, but that's how it is here. I'm saying that the attitude that it should be ok for a cop to investigate a gun owner/carrier following the law needs to change or we're in serious trouble. Cops need to respond to crimes, not harass people that aren't doing anything wrong.
- Status