Police apologize to Knoxville gun owner for stopping him

[Tyris]

Sometimes the only thing good enough the total destruction of your world as you know it, complete with displacement of your wife and kids when you're fired and can't afford the mortgage anymore.

For those in positions of authority, this is acceptable.

Think about it, their mistake/malevolence could have even worse consequences for their victim.

-T

 

[Deanimator]

Sometimes the only thing good enough the total destruction of your world as you know it, complete with displacement of your wife and kids when you're fired and can't afford the mortgage anymore.

I think that's only fair.

Sometimes I wonder if people know the implications of what they're asking.

I know the implications of that for which I'm asking to a certainty. Otherwise I wouldn't ask.

 

[M_Olson]

Sometimes I wonder if people know the implications of what they're asking.

sometimes i wonder if people know the implications of what they are defending.

 

[MASTEROFMALICE]

threat of a crime are involved

Oh, God, no! Not the "threat of a crime" argument! Well, folks, I can't counter that atom bomb of an argument. After all, someone who says he's going to drive drunk is just as good as the guys who's actually doing it, right?

Tell you what. I'm done with this thread. I've obviously caused it to denigrate horribly.

But here's a little quest for you Deanimator. Next time someone even speaks of committing a crime, tackle him. Do whatever you can in your power to make sure he doesn't actually commit the crime. Kill him if you have to. Then let me know how your "threat of a crime" argument works for ya.

It's clearly me against a bunch of self-styled "patriots" who think revolution and subjugating the criminal justice system is the answer to everything.

 

[Deanimator]

But here's a little quest for you Deanimator. Next time someone even speaks of committing a crime, tackle him. Do whatever you can in your power to make sure he doesn't actually commit the crime. Kill him if you have to. Then let me know how your "threat of a crime" argument works for ya.

So then you don't believe that threatening to shoot a police officer is a crime?

Judging by your expressed bitter hatred of internal affairs officers, you would similarly condemn someone for testifying that I threatened a police officer...

 

[billhilly66]

Well, if the guy threatening to drink and drive is swigging a bottle of tequila and trying to start his car, then I can see your point.

Just like if the guy threatening to make up charges to arrest you for is wearing a uniform and carrying a gun and badge.

I hope mod was right and you’re not really who you claim to be.

 

[RoadkingLarry]

He said that my permit had “better say just that, handgun carry,” but even if it did, he’d just “find some other reason to take me in, disorderly conduct, or inciting a panic. I’ll make some reason.”

Quote:
So MOM what part of threatening to falsify charges comes under the heading of saving lives?

Where do you see that in the story? Everyone has blown this so far out of proportion that they're starting to BELIEVE the exaggerations. The cop said he'd get him for inciting unrest. How is that falsifying charges?

Did you not bother to read the whole story or is there some blockage to what you don't want to see?

 

[Juggernaut]

He said and I agree " how does someone forget they are carrying."

I did not, and do not, forget that I am carrying. I am always aware and mindful of the fact that I'm carrying, mentally in condition yellow, and I'm always intensely aware when it's not on me, such as when I'm in a restaurant that serves alcohol. My uncovering of my gun as I left the store, (I tucked in my shirt, and did not wear my coat, as it was 90 degrees outside), was an error in judgment (clearly), but not an "oh, silly me, I'm still wearing a gun!" moment.

As the TN HCP allows for handgun carry in either an open or concealed state I fail to see how open carry is "pushing the limits." Keep in mind that I usually carry concealed, unless I am among friends, and even then usually. "Pushing the limits" might be walking around with my hand on the gun, or possibly carrying seven firearms openly, or carrying a slung AR15 pistol under my coat, but the letter of the law provides for open carry to prevent this sort of situation, just as fully as accidental printing or 'flashing' of a concealed firearm. The original intent of those asking for open carry under the permit is moot, as open carry with permit, not being forbidden, is allowed by law, however tactically unsound or simply an open request to get hassled it may be. If TN law required concealed carry only, with an exemption for only accidental display, then I would indeed be pushing the limits, and breaking the law, but I am completely within my rights to open carry, even though I am wholly unlikely to do so anywhere public, ever again, even for a moment.

I know of no legislative push, state local or city, to further restrict open carry in TN based on this incident, and the city and county council members have all indicated to me that they were personally concerned for my situation, and wanted to pass a resolution in Knox County affirming a Carry Permit bearer's right to carry either open or concealed, wherever legal.

I deeply appreciate Tam's and hso's support of my character(Hi, Tam!), though other people on the internet can and believe what they want about my behavior during the stop - I was calm, he was not. I won't attempt to convince anyone, though I may be able to get a copy of the audio from the KPD so that people can judge for themselves.

Juggernaut/ColtCCO/Trevor

 

[Old Dog]

Stepping away from the interesting sub-dialogue between MOM and his detractors ... back to the issue of whether the end results were satisfactory or not ...

As noted by someone in a previous post, one should not underestimate the damage a written letter of reprimand placed in an officer's record will do (and one has to wonder about a PO working in his third state).

One doubts Green will have much credibility left among his peers and superiors subsequent to dragging his department through the negative public scrutiny caused by the bad press (assuming folks down in TN actually read their newspapers).

Sometimes major public humiliation garners far more results in the long run than litigation.

I submit that the results are satisfactory, although the officer's termination would probably please all the internet commandos much more. No doubt, Trevor should not have had to suffer through the debacle created by an ignorant cop, but, to be sure, I believe that the case may serve TN gun-carriers favorably in the future.

 

[MechAg94]

MOM, regardless of all else, the police officer's own quotes in that last article posted pretty much show he did not know the law in Ohio or TN that he was using to detain the man and he was threatening to charge the guy with inciting a panic even though no one was apparently panicking. He screwed up and didn't know the law he was trying to enforce. That is unacceptable.

Do you threaten every person you question with a litany of additional charges? Is that SOP for your department? I seriously doubt that, but I am just curious.


The one thing I will admit is that many in the public would applaud an officer who does things like that to a "low-life" to get them off the street. I am not one of them.

 

[hso]

Officer Greene's behavior seriously calls his ethics into question.

An "error" in remembering the law is one thing, threatening to trump up charges to arrest someone makes an officer unsuitable for service to the community. There is no amount of remedial training for such a shortcoming.

I may be able to get a copy of the audio from the KPD so that people can judge for themselves.

Now wouldn't that be interesting on YouTube? It certainly would put the theorists' conjecture to rest.

 

[Deanimator]

Sometimes major public humiliation garners far more results in the long run than litigation.

Not in Chicago, EVER to the best of my knowledge.

In fact, the ONLY meaningful remedy for misconduct there is litigation. And in most cases ONLY major public humiliation strategically positions you for litigation. Virtually ALL of the ongoing action against Chicago police officers ONLY happened because there was VIDEO which caused major public humilation, both of the officer(s) and the department.

An unarmed man was shot to death by a Chicago police officer. AFTER a humiliating video was distrbuted throughout the internet, the police officer was given a 30 day suspension... and a PROMOTION to detective. The ONLY meaningful punishment of that officer will come via litigation by the family of the deceased. There is clearly NO intention to prosecute the perpetrator.

An off-duty police officer savagely beat a barmaid who refused to serve him. Until video of the beating was seen around the world, and she engaged counsel, the perpetrator was afforded preferential treatment and undercharged. Even AFTER the announcement of litigation he was shown preferential treatment. He has YET to be terminated by the Chicago PD.

I could go on. In some places, like Chicago, you won't get even an appology if a family member is wrongfully KILLED by police. The perpetrator will at most, get a risible "punishment". ONLY litigation will gain a tangible result.

 

[VARifleman]

They sustained part of Putnam’s complaint but ruled Greene hadn’t used excessive force in putting him against the wall.

This bothers me a lot. They said that an officer can assault you just for walking around even when there's no reason to believe that they are a threat or breaking the law. That is why this course of action is inadequate. I prefer open carry, it is legal, and it is my right. Anyone is free to disagree and not join in, but to say that I'm asking for it for following the law in how I dress myself, is just asinine. The cop needs to be on charges for assault and battery, and conspiracy against rights.

 

[Old Dog]

Chicago ... ah, Chicago. Seems to be a special case. Well, if the CPD is not responsive to the citizens of that great city, the citizens may have only themselves to blame for continuing to elect corrupt mayors and knucklehead councilmembers. A PD should be responsive to its city, not above it.

Winning a lawsuit does not bring back a deceased loved one nor does it make a beaten person heal faster. Winning elections, however, may bring in enough activists to fix a corrupt police department.

 

[romma]

Winning a lawsuit does not bring back a deceased loved one

Except in Chicago ironically.

 

[hso]

Folks,

This thread is about the specific incident in Knoxville. If you want to discuss incidents in other places start a thread about them. Let's get back on topic.

 

[Deanimator]

----

 

[fireflyfather]

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.

He wasn't enforcing ANY LAW. He was enforcing his own idiotic power trip. Nothing else.

 

[Autolycus]

I still hope that Knoxville gets sued. Its interesting that MASTEROFMALICE says that we dont know the implications firing the officer will have in regards to his family. They would starve and get on welfare or whatever, which is sad but the Officer is the one who could not perform his duties as a father, husband, or police officer adequately and placed them into this situation.

Did you think of the implications that the victim and their family would suffer if he was imprisoned or hurt when he was assaulted by the officer? What if he was charged as with a felony? I dont think his job/career at Coal Creek Armory would survive that. I also doubt that his family would be any better off.

Its amazing what people do when they don't think about the implications of their actions. Hopefully Officer Greene has some skills he can use in another career field. If not hopefully he will go to prison and learn some.

 

[Autolycus]

FireflyFather: I agree however I think this is just one more reason to carry concealed. Not to say I would not openly carry but either way he has the right and the cop was probably just on a power trip.

 

[Robert Hairless]

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.

I see that statement in one variation or another quite often: "it would be impossible for a police officer to be acquainted with every law on the books." I agree that it's "not a valid excuse" and if it's "simply a reality" that's not an excuse either but a damning condemnation that should make everyone very angry.

Law enforcement officers had better know the laws they choose to enforce. When they choose to enforce laws that do not exist they stop being law enforcement officers and become legally armed people who force their will on other people. If there are too many laws on the books for them to know, they shouldn't enforce the laws they don't know.

What rational person would accept such a "reality"--that there's too much to know--as the excuse for a person doing a job badly when he or she passes himself off as being competent to do that job. Incompetence is not an excuse. It is a serious deficiency and a disqualification.

Imagine excusing a medical doctor for harming a patient on the grounds that it's impossible to be acquainted with every medicine and its effects. Imagine excusing an automobile mechanic whose incompetence resulted in a car explosion on the grounds that there are just too many little wires and mechanical gadgets for anyone to know them all.

How can we take seriously anyone who argues that this officer should remain on the job because he doesn't do it properly and can't do it because it's too complex for anyone to do.

When law enforcement officers try to excuse abuses by asserting that they can't be expected to know all the laws, not even those they attempt to enforce, how can they hold other people accountable for knowing and complying with all of those same laws. If the professional isn't expected to know them, what right do they have to expect an ordinary person to know them. Ignorance of the law should be even less respected in a law enforcement officer than in a civilian lawbreaker.

Laws that do not exist are not laws. Law enforcement officers who enforce laws that do not exist have stopped being law enforcement officers and become merely enforcement officers. Enforcement officers who defend other officers' abuse of power raise the presumption that they behave the same way and want that behavior accepted.

 

[hso]

This isn't a minor detail.

Not knowing the carry laws in your jurisdiction is a serious failure in training and judgment.

Threatening to make up charges against someone when no legitimate charges are available to bring is an ethical shortcoming.

Officer Greene can claim ignorance and the whole department can undergo remedial training to correct that failure.

There is no remedial training the department can provide for an officer that willfully threatens to trump up charges against an innocent person. That is an ethical failure on the part of the officer and makes him as unsuitable to fill his position.

I'm not sure what law Officer Greene broke and could be charged with, but I do believe that the KPD would be better off without him and it is within the administrative authority of the Chief to dismiss him.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Well said, HSO, but the situation isn't all that complex. Officer Greene should be arrested for violating the law against wearing a uniform while accosting a male in legal possession of groceries, which is a felony in Tennessee, and therefore cause for Officer Greene's dismissal. Even if there is no such law or it isn't a felony it shouldn't matter in Knoxville.

I don't much admire that chief's approach to the matter of educating his officers about the laws they are supposed to enforce. He evidently waits until they need remediation instead of ensuring that they know what they are supposed to do before doing it. I don't think it would be acceptable in medicine, for example, to give physicians short courses in what they've done wrong after each time they do it.

 

[wolf13]

I don't know if the officer get a big enough pusnishment, it will depend on how the record stays with him. Could he be fired, certantly. I don't like many parts of the story, but the thing that bothers me the most is that police officers are often times seen above the law. This is not to say that that is how they are always seen, but often it is true.

Yes, I realize that they put their life on the line every day to protect everyone else. This fact however, does not make it any worse for them to be fired for a mistake as it does for a stock broker to be punished for insider trading. If you do something wrong, its wrong. It doesn't matter who you are, or what you do. I believe that is a large problem with our society today. You look at the celebrities that get caught for things, and they get slapped on the wrist.

He tried to enforce a non-existant law. Anybody else that does that is in loads of trouble. Buying a fully auto rifle is illegal for most people, pleading ignorance to the court does not matter. Should be no different for a LEO. The law is the law, it doesn't, or shouldn't, change depending on whom breaks it.

 

[El Tejon]

Hey, hso, do you think my guys can claim ignorance of the law and the prosecutor will dismiss upon an apology?