Police apologize to Knoxville gun owner for stopping him

Police apologize to Knoxville gun owner for stopping him

September 23, 2007

KNOXVILLE (AP) -- Knoxville's police chief has apologized to a gun owner who was stopped by an officer for legally taking a Colt handgun inside a Wal-Mart.

Trevor Putnam works with guns every day as vice president of Coal Creek Armory in West Knoxville, and he has a permit to carry a weapon.

Officer Glenn Todd Greene frisked and threatened to arrest Putnam back in June when he took his handgun into Wal-Mart.

After an internal investigation, Greene was given a written reprimand and remedial training for rudeness and for not knowing the law.

Putnam received a written apology from the police chief.

http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=7116005&nav=0RYv

 

Here's the backstory:

http://www.coltcco.com/?p=180

And the man's reaction to the apology:

http://www.coltcco.com/?p=187

And LawDog's blog post with a very eloquent perspective on it:

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2007/09/bad-apples.html

pax

 

Wow...hasn't Knoxville changed!!! Glad the letter was sent.

 

I thought open carry was legal in Ohio? And has been for awhile? I could have sworn I read about a protest in which a ton of Ohio gun owners walked past the state capitol building or something, openly carrying firearms, to protest the lack of a concealed carry law. Something like that.

 

RyanM ~

Yup. That makes it all the ... funnier.

LawDog's take on that aspect of it:

That about sums it up.

pax

 

My vague recollection is that in the state of Tennessee what Officer Greene did is the crime of kidnapping and/or unlawful confinement.

 

Classic brush off-

The Chief files a letter in the officers file, apologizes, promises some remedial training but doesn't address the physical assault NOR the threats of false charges.

Until folks start losing their commissions and facing charges for doing illegal acts, there will be more of this stuff, not less.

 

A big +1.

This cop knowingly assaulted someone, restrained them, violated their civil rights, illegally searched them, and threatens them with arrest. A reprimand is not enough. I wonder what would have happened if a non-LEO did this to someone? How many years imprisonment?

I feel like this all could have been avoided had he concealed the firearm. However he does have the right and we should defend those rights. I think the officer should have just tried to be a little bit less aggressive in regards to enforcement of the law.

 

Heck, guys, I'm just jaw-dropped that he even got an apology.

 

And suing would end up costing the taxpayers a lot of money for no reason, especially if he wins.

 

No, there is a reason. His rights were violated and he was the victim of assault as well as falsely imprisoned. If the taxpayers are so concerned then maybe they should be concerned why their LEOs are acting like this and costing them money.

 

Don't underestimate the power of a reprimand in an officer's file. It could easily cost him any future potential promotions coming his way.

I have to say, I think the situation was handled fairly. It's not like the guy got a beating from the cop. It was simply a misunderstanding. A mistake. It would be impossible for a police officer to be aquainted with every law on the books (not a valid excuse, I know, simply a reality) and all it cost anyone was a little embarrasment and inconvienence. The guy got an apology, and other officers who were ignorant of the law are probably now aware of it because of this officers reprimand.

 

No, this wasn't simply a misunderstanding or a mistake. It became more than a mistake when the officer expressed a willingness to make up a charge to inconvenience the citizen. For that, he should be summarily fired, because his word will always be suspect.

 

I am not supprised this happened. Many officers have vaugue memories sometimes due to crs or being a ____________ well let you fill that in. The business he is vp for handles many le training sessions and doe qualifications on site as well as special orders for the pd. I always thought it was better to find out rather than assume if someone was illegally packing. But To even have feed back these days is a surprise. I usually just hide mine less trouble from some fellow officers who don't even want us to be packing. I was asked if I was a terrorist once by an idiot at work once. Wanted to know why I was issued an M-4 and a tach vest along with my other gear in the trunk.
But I would say the local pd is going to be at the back of the list when needing some gear for a while.

 

Another example of the kings jesters demonstrating their ignorance, no wonder the peasants hold them in such low esteem.

 

Any word of any potential state or federal criminal prosecution of the officer?

 

Lame

As far as a letter of reprimand, it could be a vague and pointless document, or a real scorcher. But remember- in the OTHER recent case, the kid chewed out and threatened with false arrest who recorded the officer who had turned HIS camera off- that guy, and his chief BOTH had records that should have been in their files- but were hired, paid, promoted, armed and set loose among the citizenry.

Anyone who does what this officer does deserves to be made an example of by losing their commission- for the sake of POLICE reputation. Threatening false charges ought to get you handcuffed and locked up, then fired with your commission cancelled EVERY TIME.

If these bad apples really are only a small percentage of all police, lets sort them out and have excellent policing.

 

I would somehow see to it that the next time that cop is standing in the doorway of a Wal-Mart, he is saying "Welcome to Wal Mart" and wearing a LIGHT BLUE vest, not a dark blue uniform.

 

Interesting. There was a recent 4 page thread in Legal about the laws and right/wrong of claiming self-defense to avoid a clearly illegal arrest.

Most interesting is a lot of posters in the thread were at a real loss to believe that a clearly illegal arrest ever happened.

I think this might qualify.

 

The victim needs to sue that officer for assault and battery. There was nothing reasonable about his actions. One cannot commit tortious acts against a citizen based on an INCORRECT belief about the law in a DIFFERENT state.

Clean him out.

 

He wasn't arrested. He was detained briefly. The actionable parts are the physical violence and the threat to make up something to HAVE cause to arrest him.

I understand about promotions and such, but ISTM that firing him would be a more appropriate punishment.

Springmom

 

"Someone did _______ to me, give me ___ million dollars" is not always the right answer. Suing and costing everyone else a couple million in settlement is not the way to actually fix problems.

 

Suing the department for millions is certainly not the prefered route. What would be nice, but probably won't happen:

Fire officer.
Citizen sue officer, departement not pay to defend officer.

When departments keep bad officers on the force, and choose to defend them legally, then there is little choice but to sue the department. Hopefully someone would then see the light.

This officer is not fired immediatly and then other LE wonders why all officers are viewed with a certain amount of suspicion :banghead:.

This could have been a good PR opportunity, and they changed it into a bad PR event.

 

OK, so lets put a different citizen in the same situation, My 70 year old father has MS, and as a result some strength issues. He has a carry permit. Had he been the victim of the KPD officers attention I have no doubt he would have suffered some injury. Or how about if it was someones mother he saw with a legal weapon.
What that cop did was wrong on many levels and a reprimand is not near punishment enough.
Don't even get me started on the ignorance of the law crap, no excuse for me no excuse for him.