Metro Police policy in Las Vegas: How to deal with Open Carry

Status
Not open for further replies.

ants

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
3,710
April 8, 2010, article in the Las Vegas Sun. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/apr/07/nevadans-are-free-don-their-arms-open/

The link is Thursday's story in the Las Vegas Sun newspaper on on open carry in Nevada. It is a well written article. Doesn't choose to slam or slant either side.


This portion is a side bar to the main story. Very interesting...

HOW METRO POLICE ARE TOLD TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE OPENLY CARRYING GUNS
Metro’s 20-minute refresher course on open carrying of firearms, produced in-house, begins with the statement that Nevada is an open-carry state.

It goes on to tell officers that there are three ways to “engage” a person who is openly carrying a firearm: a consensual stop, in which an officer casually walks up to an individual and attempts to engage in conversation but does not make an arrest if the person simply walks away; a “Terry stop,” in which an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person may have committed a crime or is about to do so; or an arrest.

The training depicts three scenarios using still photos.

The first scenario, which occurs on the Strip, involves an anonymous tip shortly after midnight of an armed white or Hispanic man, roughly 5-foot-10 with a medium build. The tipster says the individual is wearing a blue shirt, black baggy shorts and has a black bandana hanging from a rear pocket, which can be considered a gang symbol. When officers arrive, they see that an individual closely matching that description has a cup in his hand and is 30 feet away from a large group of people. The officers are instructed to approach the individual to determine his frame of mind. If intoxicated, he could be arrested for possessing the firearm. He also would be in trouble if he were an underage drinker or an ex-felon in possession of a firearm. If he’s not intoxicated and there is no suspicion that he has or is about to commit a crime, there is no reason to detain him.

In the next scenario, which takes place after 3 a.m. in a neighborhood known for drug peddling and gang violence, a woman calls police to report a young Asian man in her backyard with a gun and a small dog. By the time police arrive a few minutes later, they spot a man matching the description wearing a beanie and walking a dog on a leash on the sidewalk. The officers are instructed to approach the individual and ask him whether he was in the backyard — which would have been trespassing — and to try to determine whether the beanie could be used as a mask. Because he has no burglary tools and the woman did not report any theft or property damage, the officers are instructed to let him go if they have no other reason to detain him.

In the final scenario, officers at the Fremont Street Experience one evening during a festival of live entertainment come upon seven armed adults — five white men, a black man and a white woman — standing around but not drinking. In that instance, officers are instructed to leave those individuals alone.
 
Why? They know what the law is, can't they be trusted to think for themselves? Real life situations cannot be simply simulated like this. It just never happens as in the half baked scenarios some smart pants behind a desk puts together. It just doesn't.:rolleyes:
 
dec41971 said:
Why? They know what the law is, can't they be trusted to think for themselves? Real life situations cannot be simply simulated like this. It just never happens as in the half baked scenarios some smart pants behind a desk puts together. It just doesn't.

It's called training. Would you rather have untrained officers out there who either inadvertently or purposely violate law abiding citizens' rights by always detaining them and harass them merely because they are legally carrying a firearm? L.V. Metro police had a pretty big problem with that, hopefully the training will take care some of their problem.
 
Agreed. It's called training. Proper training reinforces the law and department policy. Without training, policy is nothing but a piece of paper, and the law is a concept that is understood by most, but not all. Are you REALLY in favor of allowing the officers to enforce the law without training? Sure, the cases where they take inappropriate action will be dismissed in court, but how many people's civil rights would be violated, and how much money would be spent on defense attorneys, to get to that point? Then how much money will the department in question pay out in false arrest lawsuits? How much will the taxpayer have to spend to cover those lawsuits? How much, in turn, will your taxes go up?

Rather than waste the taxpayers money and violate civil rights needlessly, the department has taken the responsible step and is teaching the officers the difference between lawful open carry and illegal activity. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Mike
 
It's a giant leap forward for everyone.

Five years ago I took the mandatory refresher course for CCW license renewal here in Nevada, my instructor was a Sergeant for the Boulder City Police Department. He explained that the Clark County Sheriff believed that any 'Man With a Gun' call required lights-and-siren response, and the suspect would be disarmed, physically restrained, and detained while an army of officers investigated. This would occur in any MWG complaint, even a Concealed Firearm Permit holder who was simply printing through his shirt. The Sheriff felt that a tourist town just couldn't fail to respond to any situation he felt was a threat to the tourists' feeling of safety and security. [Note: That sheriff did not run for reelection.]

Training videos that stress, "...there is no reason to detain him," and "...leave those individuals alone" when ordinary citizens responsibly exercise their Constitutional rights is truly a giant step in the right direction.

Furthermore, it sure makes the officers' life easier, doesn't it? Know the law, and leave the people alone if they aren't doing anything wrong. You can't criticize that.
 
Officers being trained in a classroom setting discussing the law and walking thru several different scenarios they may face on the street seems like a great way to train them. They can discuss various situations and make decisions in their minds ahead of time about how they might deal with them in real life, at least the thought path will be there.

Gives them a chance to sit and think about it, understand the law and how to make decisions that don't involve slapping on the cuffs until they are "sure" the individual wasn't automatically a bad guy just because he had a gun.

Sounds like a professional training tool to me.
 
Anonymous tips have no predictive value(J.L. v Florida) hence can not be used to justify the approach of someone open carrying or concealed carrying. The second example would be (most likely) overturned if the arrestee can hire COMPETENT legal help!
 
The second example would be (most likely) overturned if the arrestee can hire COMPETENT legal help!
What would be overturned? In neither example were any of the armed citizens arrested for anything.
 
Any time you can view scenarios that leads to discussion about real world experience, it only helps the law abiding citizen and helps the LEO to "get thinking about" the what ifs of actual encounters.
 
Training cannot and is not expected to be a substitute for what really happens on the street. However, these scenarios are good so that officers can ANALOGIZE to SIMILAR situations on the beat.

Of course, these three scenarios certainly won't cover everything that an officer might see out in the field, but it's better than nothing.

Note the undertone of the entire training is that the open carrying of a firearm, by itself, is not sufficient grounds for an arrest. Even in the trespassing scenario, the gun isn't going to play a part in any possible charges.

I think this training is a good start, and given the limited training time and resources likely available to a department (which probably has lots of other ground to cover that has nothing to do with guns) this seems to be an effective use of time.

RmeJu
 
From what I have read in the past it sounds like a giant step forward regarding OC in Vegas.
Training police to know and understand rights can't be a bad thing.
 
Why? They know what the law is, can't they be trusted to think for themselves? Real life situations cannot be simply simulated like this. It just never happens as in the half baked scenarios some smart pants behind a desk puts together. It just doesn't.

I disagree. I continued to learn quite a bit from more experienced agents once I was out in the field, but a ton of the situations we ran into had been covered in the academy. A lot of the first 3-6 months was like deja-vu . . .you know you are a trainee and don't have any real world experience to rely on but for some reason the situation you are in seems somewhat familiar, and you are better prepared to deal with it.

Based on my experience I'd be willing to bet that those scenarios were not dreamed up by a guy behind a desk. Just about every single training exercise we did was based on something that actually happened to a real agent in real life, and they often chose scenarios which agents had handled poorly in real life.
 
CA needs this type of training desperately on a state-wide level. A lot of the cops around here will just draw up on you immediately without asking any questions, even if you have not violated any laws. Even though OC is legal here, they take it upon themselves to make your life as miserable as possible for doing it.
 
KB, my opinion of the police has changed 180 degrees since I left California. I like the cops here, a lot. Not there.

A culture of "above the law" pervades every major agency besides the CHP, at least in any experience I had as an EMT, a citizen, and a gun club board member. It would take more than training to change that.

I'm sure the cop who had the good-sized indoor pot farm in his apartment -- way too much for personal consumption -- had some clue it was illegal. So did all his coworkers at the party. This was a long time ago, already.

Personally, I think pot should be at least as legal as beer, but that's not the point...
 
Last edited:
Approaching an individual that may be armed is anxiety inducing - don't ya think? One point of training is to reduce anxiety so that the officer is more confident that they can handle the situation and it is in the realm of normal behavior.

You don't get that anxiety reduction from just reading a memo about the law - that's why folks push realistic training in so many domains.


Glenn
 
You're welcome, thesecond. A good news report always puts the world in a brighter light.

[P.S. I put that alloy hammerless J-frame on my permit. It's so light that it's hard to shoot, but easy to carry. I like it.]
 
Well-balanced article, nice to see the Sun taking that step. In contrast, a few weeks ago, I read a rant on the Review's editorial page, attempting a 'psycho-analysis' of the 'paranoid' gun owner, cringe-worthy stuff.

(ants, everyone should have at least 1 j-frame :), get some backstrap-covering grips on that 642 - hogue monogrips, or even better, CT-305 or 405's - the felt recoil will be reduced significantly. A-zoom snap caps for off-range trigger control practice and work your way up from standard pressure .38, LRN and wadcutters.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top