I wonder how an officer who wanted to "disarm you for his safety" would respond to a request he do the same for your safety? His reasoning is that he doesn't know you and therefore doesn't necessarily "trust" you....but in the reverse situation, he expects his badge to identify him as one of the so-called "good guys" and that alone is supposed to be enough to put one at ease. Why doesn't my permit identify me in a similiar manner as a non-threat? Not to sound crasss, but my permit isn't the first thing I'd show an officer if I planned on violence...a muzzle would be. While I understand the idea of being disarmed for the officer's safety, I don't necessarily agree with it. Why is HIS safety more important than MINE? Really, thats what disarming a lawfully armed person says quite plainly....that the officer believes his safety trumps a citizne's by virtue of position. By the time he runsmy plates, the officer knows more about me than I'm likley to ever know about him. He's in a much better position to figure out if I'm a threat than vice versa, in all reality.
Got pulled over; Officer took my sidearm.
- Thread starter Magic_Man
- Start date
- Status
Travis McGee
Member
I keep my FL CHL behind my DL.
After reading this, I'm moving it deeper in the stack of cards!
After reading this, I'm moving it deeper in the stack of cards!
mgkdrgn
Member
Sounds like he was respectful and professional the entire time, right?
Knowing how many cops get shot doing traffic stops, particularly along I-95, I personally don't have a problem with his actions as described in the OP.
Bottom line, he wants to go home at the end of his shift, just like everybody else.
Knowing how many cops get shot doing traffic stops, particularly along I-95, I personally don't have a problem with his actions as described in the OP.
Bottom line, he wants to go home at the end of his shift, just like everybody else.
brboyer
Member
How many is that exactly?
NavyLCDR
member
He needs a lot more training, then, because the way he did it is not conducive to going home at the end of his shift!
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
I would love to see the statistics on how many cops get shot by licensed handgun carriers on I-95. Please show us that.
Remember, the LEO knew he was dealing with carrier, since he saw the license. The argument was made that maybe he didn't know the license was good etc. OK fine, show the numbers.
I'd LOVE to see how many cops get shot by permitted carriers. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess "Zero". Let's see the stats....
danez71
Member
I may have missed it but IF the officer was alone AND truely was concerned for his safety..... my brother in law in LE SD says that he should have called for back up BEFORE asking him to get out of the car and never should have gone inside the car to disarm... if he was truely concerned for his safety.
If alone and truely concerned for his safety, his dept trains to leave him in the car and call for back up.
By leaving him in the car... he doesnt have the opportunity to struggle with the officer and his containment in the car gives the officer a better ability of staying out of the line of fire.
I agree with NavyLT in the sense tha it was a guise to run the SN's
If alone and truely concerned for his safety, his dept trains to leave him in the car and call for back up.
By leaving him in the car... he doesnt have the opportunity to struggle with the officer and his containment in the car gives the officer a better ability of staying out of the line of fire.
I agree with NavyLT in the sense tha it was a guise to run the SN's
dpeticca
Member
Friend is a Former PPD Detective
Bottom line is that 99.9% of the folks in Philly with weapons are carrying those illegally. The police have a HEALTHY distrust of all individuals with weapons.
Despite the LCTF, the suspicion by the police of anyone with a firearm is strong. Given that the poster was disarmed BEFORE his license, registration, insurance and LCTF could be checked out, I don't understand what the fuss is about.
Folks that are upset about it need to try and put themselves in the officers shoes. We've had too many policeman shot (some killed) here in the last few years.
The poster was let off a speeding citation and a failure to signal when changing lanes, what more can the officer to do stay in his (poster's) good graces?
It's absolutely silly to escalate this issue to the police administration. Not only will they (IMO) confirm the procedure the office took to secure the weapon while checking out the poster's background, the officer might have to explain why he let him off the hook for the offense.
Also, while there is no duty to inform if you are carrying in the state of PA, and while it may bring on this kind of response, I'd much rather tell the officer, than to have the officer see my gun or determine I'm carrying, and perhaps bring his gun out of holster as the situation escalates. That is very likely what would happen if he didn't say anything to the officer and it was discovered. And THAT is a much worse situation than being temporarily disarmed by a police officer.
Bottom line is that 99.9% of the folks in Philly with weapons are carrying those illegally. The police have a HEALTHY distrust of all individuals with weapons.
Despite the LCTF, the suspicion by the police of anyone with a firearm is strong. Given that the poster was disarmed BEFORE his license, registration, insurance and LCTF could be checked out, I don't understand what the fuss is about.
Folks that are upset about it need to try and put themselves in the officers shoes. We've had too many policeman shot (some killed) here in the last few years.
The poster was let off a speeding citation and a failure to signal when changing lanes, what more can the officer to do stay in his (poster's) good graces?
It's absolutely silly to escalate this issue to the police administration. Not only will they (IMO) confirm the procedure the office took to secure the weapon while checking out the poster's background, the officer might have to explain why he let him off the hook for the offense.
Also, while there is no duty to inform if you are carrying in the state of PA, and while it may bring on this kind of response, I'd much rather tell the officer, than to have the officer see my gun or determine I'm carrying, and perhaps bring his gun out of holster as the situation escalates. That is very likely what would happen if he didn't say anything to the officer and it was discovered. And THAT is a much worse situation than being temporarily disarmed by a police officer.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
He got IN THE CAR with an armed suspect. There is no possible way to argue that he did that for "safety" purposes. That would be insanity to get into a car with an armed person you had the slightest hint was dangerous.
Kentucky_Rifleman
Member
The whole disarming, putting the gun in the trunk business sounds like a slippery way to check a gun and search a car with no reasonable cause.
The disarming aside, (and this, frankly disturbs me) why not just set the gun ON the trunk or IN the back seat and tell the driver to wait until the officer was gone to retrieve it?
I wonder if they're teaching this tactic at the academies these days?
KR
The disarming aside, (and this, frankly disturbs me) why not just set the gun ON the trunk or IN the back seat and tell the driver to wait until the officer was gone to retrieve it?
I wonder if they're teaching this tactic at the academies these days?
KR
KBintheSLC
Member
The OP's story is not the worst I have heard. The only time I was pulled over while carrying, the officer did not disarm me, and he let me off with a warning. I have heard/read stories much worse than this one. Actually, the cop in the OP story seemed pretty professional. However, I still think it is lousy to disarm a lawfully licensed CC permit holder over a petty traffic violation... especially when they are giving the officer full cooperation.
brboyer
Member
For what it's worth. FBI UCR data for the ten year period 1999-2008, shows 63 officers Feloniously Killed nationwide during traffic stops. Average number of traffic stops during this period was approx 2.5 million/year.
So we have 25 million traffic stops that resulted in 63 LEO deaths (let me be clear, one is too many but I'm just providing the actual data) that comes down to a 1 in 400,000 chance of a LEO being killed during a traffic stop.
Therefore I submit that the poster has no idea what he is talking about.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
There are almost (or over now?) 700,000 LCTF holders in the Commonwealth. You're going to have to come up with SOME justification for your "99.9%" number before I can even come close to believing that.
That's not a "healthy" distrust. It is a sign of a sick society and/or law enforcement system. They need to be on their guard, but they MUST treat every citizen with due respect for that person's rights.
How about, there was no reasonable suspicion that the person had committed a crime involving violent action or that weapon in any way. The officer has no legitimate reason to suspect that the driver would act in any unlawful way -- and then (as TR points out) does something absolutely SUICIDAL in putting himself completely at the mercy of the driver while climbing into the car. Obviously "officer safety" is a bunch of hogwash.
One is too many. However, if the job is too dangerous and scary to do without violating my rights -- find another job.
Or, it might encourage the administration to institute a procedures change that gets the officers acting in a more appropriate manner. If you don't SAY SOMETHING, they'll NEVER have a reason to change.
NavyLCDR
member
dpeticca said:
The fuss is about the fact that the officer found out the subject was armed and then proceeded to immediate take the actions that were ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY the MOST DANGEROUS, to himself, actions that he could possibly have taken! The cop walked around the front or the rear of the vehicle, placing him in THE MOST likely position to get shot at or ran over by the subject and then confined himself, at least partially, INSIDE THE VEHICLE WITH THE ARMED SUBJECT!
Deanimator
Member
And this is where defending ANYTHING police do gets foolish.
We now have people defending things that could have harmed the cop, had the driver been as dangerous as his treatment indicated.
It's like saying, "I was afraid the baby might get into the drain cleaner... so I put him on the window ledge."
You can't cite danger of harm as an excuse to do something ten times more dangerous.
No they don't. How many times do you suppose a police officer gets pulled over and gets disarmed? How many times do you suppose police officers disarm each other for anything short of a good reason to believe that the officer had just used his or her gun illegally or their badge was being taken away for criminal activity?dpettica said:
I'd bet that it never happens.
It's not a suspicion of people with guns, it's a suspicion of people who aren't cops. They think of everyone as criminals. At least, the ones who act the way this cop did think that way.
The fuss is about the infringement of this little thing called his constitutional rights. You may not care about that, but some of us here do.
No, I don't need to do that. As someone said, there's no officer safety clause to the constitution. The constitution says that cops can't behave that way, and it frankly doesn't matter how reasonable or unreasonable you may think that is, it's the law.
Oh, I dunno, silly little things like respect the man's constitutional rights?
Oh, yes, and it's absolutely silly to complain about the government banning things like assault rifles, those things are just dangerous. I totally understand why they would want to ban those things, innocent police officers and children shouldn't have to worry about whether or not someone ten miles away is going to just take them out.
Or not.
Wait, an officer discovering that you are legally carrying is much worse than if he illegally disarms you? Any cops who draw their guns on you for things like that have absolutely no business being cops, let alone being out of prison.
dpeticca
Member
Hmmm....
When I say 99.9% of folks in this city with an illegal gun, it's a belief formed out of interaction with law enforcement folks I know.
Right or wrong, it was explained to me by a good friend, that when "every guy you stop has a firearm also turns out to be a criminal, with warrants etc.., your instinct is to treat people like they're a criminal simply by having the firearm". Now I'm not saying that's right. In fact, I disagree whole heartedly. I don't think carrying a firearm equates to me being treated like a criminal, however, what I am saying is that I can understand how the correlation exists in the minds of some of these policer officers, and I can understand why the idea of a common policy of disarming someone until you can verify their background makes sense.
And another point to respond to the idea that the poster was "unsuspicious" or some such, he was speeding and changing lanes without signaling. These 2 things fall under our road rage laws in PA, the other single criteria is following too closely. Any 2 of the 3 qualifies as "road rage", and as such, the man is suspicious enough in my mind to be treated distrustfully until his information checks out.
Anyone seen this in the news lately?
http://www.whptv.com/news/state/sto...oad-rage-shooting/P17192bnt0-2iKZEjxs3ww.cspx
I live about 5 miles from where this happened, and I can tell you, the perp is a 50 year middle class, white male, network administrator with a teenage daughter, a summer vacation residence at the beach, and lives in a nice quiet development.
This guy was so pissed off that he couldn't go 70 miles an hour he shot a lady in another vehicle that was going too slow.
Road rage is serious, and I believe the police should break the balls of anybody driving like the poster was driving. Erratic driving coupled with a firearm would cause me to be concerned. As to the method for disarming, I can't argue the mechanics of how that is done, but I don't mind that the officer chose to do that.
When I say 99.9% of folks in this city with an illegal gun, it's a belief formed out of interaction with law enforcement folks I know.
Right or wrong, it was explained to me by a good friend, that when "every guy you stop has a firearm also turns out to be a criminal, with warrants etc.., your instinct is to treat people like they're a criminal simply by having the firearm". Now I'm not saying that's right. In fact, I disagree whole heartedly. I don't think carrying a firearm equates to me being treated like a criminal, however, what I am saying is that I can understand how the correlation exists in the minds of some of these policer officers, and I can understand why the idea of a common policy of disarming someone until you can verify their background makes sense.
And another point to respond to the idea that the poster was "unsuspicious" or some such, he was speeding and changing lanes without signaling. These 2 things fall under our road rage laws in PA, the other single criteria is following too closely. Any 2 of the 3 qualifies as "road rage", and as such, the man is suspicious enough in my mind to be treated distrustfully until his information checks out.
Anyone seen this in the news lately?
http://www.whptv.com/news/state/sto...oad-rage-shooting/P17192bnt0-2iKZEjxs3ww.cspx
I live about 5 miles from where this happened, and I can tell you, the perp is a 50 year middle class, white male, network administrator with a teenage daughter, a summer vacation residence at the beach, and lives in a nice quiet development.
This guy was so pissed off that he couldn't go 70 miles an hour he shot a lady in another vehicle that was going too slow.
Road rage is serious, and I believe the police should break the balls of anybody driving like the poster was driving. Erratic driving coupled with a firearm would cause me to be concerned. As to the method for disarming, I can't argue the mechanics of how that is done, but I don't mind that the officer chose to do that.
dpeticca
Member
????
Chaos, move to Philadelphia. I'm not saying it's right, but with your attitude, you're going to find yourself in a shootout if you believe that the officers aren't going to escalate because you have a gun. More so if you're going to go off on constitutional rants.
The officers are doing what years of experience has taught them to avoid, and that is, a person with a loaded gun.
The arguments against disarming the poster are academic. The constitution gives you the right to bear arms. It doesn't give you the right to drive like a maniac and then expect a police officer to trust that you're not a criminal when you've availed yourself of breaking 2 driving violations. The poster doesn't even argue he wasn't doing those things.
Chaos, move to Philadelphia. I'm not saying it's right, but with your attitude, you're going to find yourself in a shootout if you believe that the officers aren't going to escalate because you have a gun. More so if you're going to go off on constitutional rants.
The officers are doing what years of experience has taught them to avoid, and that is, a person with a loaded gun.
The arguments against disarming the poster are academic. The constitution gives you the right to bear arms. It doesn't give you the right to drive like a maniac and then expect a police officer to trust that you're not a criminal when you've availed yourself of breaking 2 driving violations. The poster doesn't even argue he wasn't doing those things.
dpeticca, perhaps if you are so understanding you should learn to understand that police officers with that mentality should not be police officers.
BTW, arguments that we are allowed to carry guns by the constitution are seen as simply academic by some people. Driving a little over the limit and not signaling for a turn are things that most people do sometimes. It does not equate to driving like a maniac, and it is certainly no reason to think that you are some cop killer.
I find it pathetic that you have so little regard for your own constitutional rights. If you are so understanding of the police taking them away, why should anyone else respect them, why should the government respect your rights to have guns at all? Don't give me those academic arguments about the constitution and higher crime rates in areas without guns, we need to think of the children and the police who just want to go home to their wives and children. Why shouldn't we think those things and take away your right to bear arms completely?
BTW, arguments that we are allowed to carry guns by the constitution are seen as simply academic by some people. Driving a little over the limit and not signaling for a turn are things that most people do sometimes. It does not equate to driving like a maniac, and it is certainly no reason to think that you are some cop killer.
I find it pathetic that you have so little regard for your own constitutional rights. If you are so understanding of the police taking them away, why should anyone else respect them, why should the government respect your rights to have guns at all? Don't give me those academic arguments about the constitution and higher crime rates in areas without guns, we need to think of the children and the police who just want to go home to their wives and children. Why shouldn't we think those things and take away your right to bear arms completely?
Straight Shooter
Member
This is part of the problem here. Although the rest of PA is pretty gun friendly Philly is very anti. The PD, DA, legislators etc.
Although is is legal to OC in Philly (with a LTCF), I will bet you don't get 2 blocks without being harassed. LEOs frequently tell people that it is illegal to OC in Philly.
I was told by a Philly officer who shoots a my range that if I wanted to shoot at a range in Philly I should put my range bag in my trunk and have my ammo separated from it. Why? I have a LTCF. He said it didn't matter, if I was going to the range my range bag shouldn't be next to me. WHY!? I have a license to carry ON OR ABOUT my person!
Philly PD makes up their own rules and the DA backs them.
They have started to confiscate peoples LTCF if their gun was stolen from their car, because they left it in the car. You can argue the merits of leaving a gun in a car but what the hell are you going to do if you need to go into the post office or some other restricted place??? They are punishing the person who was robbed! And then they wonder why people aren't reporting stolen guns?
I would say that it is even more important for one to play it by the letter if stopped in Philly. Keep your mouth shut.
divemedic
Member
I weep for this country. Expecting police, who are SWORN to uphold and defend the Constitution and THE LAW, to honor the Supreme law of the land, the Constitution, will get you in a gunfight. I submit that if the police feel they need to ignore the Constitution, maybe they NEED to get in a few gunfights.
What if I change that sentence to read:
"every guy you stop that is black also turns out to be a criminal, with warrants etc.., your instinct is to treat people like they're a criminal simply because they are black"
Would that sentence still be fair? Would you still support it? What would the public reaction be?
According to the Officer Down Memorial Page, there were 126 police officers killed in the line of duty in 2009.
51 were killed in traffic/transportation related accidents
9 were killed by vehicular assault
9 heart attacks
1 by an inmate using a sprinkler head as a weapon
3 from respiratory failure from inhaling debris from 9/11
2 were shot by other cops (both shooters were running with fingers on the trigger)
1 was shot by a cop whose wife was involved in a shooting of a utility worker earlier in the day
50 officers were shot by non-cops: 1 of them was shot in 1984 and died in 2009, so that is not exactly applicable here
more cops died at the hands of other cops or in vehicle accidents than were killed by criminals with guns. If we took their cars away, we would save more police lives than taking away the constitution.
Also, another odd factoid: 20 cops were killed in 9 separate shooting incidents where they were ambushed by the shooter. Are we seeing the logical progression of the "all citizens are the enemy" mindset?
dpeticca
Member
Chaos, Don't mean to be offense
Sorry if during implying you could get shot if you moved here was taken incorrectly.
When I say it's academic, I mean, it's not that you're not right. If I had my drothers I'd move to Texas, but I can't do that for a lot of reasons.
If you live here, and you want to exercise your rights to carry (forget about openly), you're going to have problems. I'd prefer to let the courts work it out first. I hope the supreme court this summer will rule against Chicago and in favor of gun rights owners. I believe we should have the right to defend ourselves at all times.
What I think some may have taken wrongly, is that I'm not saying what the cop did was right. What I AM saying is that, if I took the approach you were taking, I could very well end up in a morgue. My family might win the lawsuit as my constitutional rights may have been violated, but I'd prefer to remain alive while I fight a legal battle.
We can all discuss this here on the internet about what should and shouldn't have happened, but if you get pulled over in Philly and intend to get into a constitutional discussion, I believe someone could get hurt. I don't want anyone thinking they can mount that kind of a protest here, it just won't work. (i.e. keeping a firearm on your person against the wishes of a police officer).
Sorry if during implying you could get shot if you moved here was taken incorrectly.
When I say it's academic, I mean, it's not that you're not right. If I had my drothers I'd move to Texas, but I can't do that for a lot of reasons.
If you live here, and you want to exercise your rights to carry (forget about openly), you're going to have problems. I'd prefer to let the courts work it out first. I hope the supreme court this summer will rule against Chicago and in favor of gun rights owners. I believe we should have the right to defend ourselves at all times.
What I think some may have taken wrongly, is that I'm not saying what the cop did was right. What I AM saying is that, if I took the approach you were taking, I could very well end up in a morgue. My family might win the lawsuit as my constitutional rights may have been violated, but I'd prefer to remain alive while I fight a legal battle.
We can all discuss this here on the internet about what should and shouldn't have happened, but if you get pulled over in Philly and intend to get into a constitutional discussion, I believe someone could get hurt. I don't want anyone thinking they can mount that kind of a protest here, it just won't work. (i.e. keeping a firearm on your person against the wishes of a police officer).
Last edited:
I can understand what you are saying. However, I still don't think that we need to put ourselves in the officer's shoes, and I don't think that we should just accept it.
Again, I'm not advocating shooting at an officer who does something like that, but you can, at the very least, take the issue up with the police agency, and if they brush you off, you can take the issue to the courts yourself.
Again, I'm not advocating shooting at an officer who does something like that, but you can, at the very least, take the issue up with the police agency, and if they brush you off, you can take the issue to the courts yourself.
- Status
