Questionable procedures by police last night

[NineseveN]

Nineseven, while I'm in accord with the idea that a CHL holder is very unlikely to be a problem for an officer, some of the posts in this very thread make me believe that disarming everybody during a traffic stop is not at all unwise. Too many people just can't get a handle on the realities of the world we live in, and have too short a fuse. Either that or Keyboard Kommando-itis is attacking...

Art, I don't think anyone that has taken issue with being disarmed during a routine stop has advocated violence or physical defiance in the event that it happens to us. So that kind of concern is unfounded. I take issue with it, that does not mean I'm going to break leather and stare the guy down and dare him to infringe on my rights, that’s just not going to work. If I feel my rights are being violated, I will pursue it to the extent allowed by law, no more, no less. Unless my life is in immediate danger, despite my utter disgust over being disarmed without sufficient cause past the illusionary boogey man of "this stop might be the one", the cop, as I have stated already, is just doing as they are told, trained and authorized to do. No need to makes things difficult for them; it serves no purpose to anyone and will only escalate a situation that needs not be escalated on the spot.

Cops want to go home at end of shift, just like plain folks. I expect them to set up a system that's loaded in favor of going home unhurt. I don't know why anybody would expect otherwise. That's just plain common sense.

The same common sense applies that us common folk want to go home without having felt that our rights have been violated by being disarmed without cause. We don't sacrifice liberty for safety without cause in this country, or at least, we shouldn't be doing it or allowing others to.

I'm spoiled, I guess, by my own interactions with cops and traffic stops. I'm usually out of my vehicle, billfold in one hand and DL/CHL in the other before the cop's out of his car. I'm smiling. I get asked for my gun's location; it's in the console. End of queries about guns, unless we get into a BS session about guns. I sometimes get a warning ticket. It's been years since I had to write a check to a JP. The cop goes on his way; I go on mine. End of deal.

I lead an ulcer-free life.

, Art

My experiences are in fact, similar...though I don't speed much these days.

 

[orangeninja]

Quote Makarova ---“You didn't answer my post about the number of police assaulted by CHLs. I dont know where to get those stats…”

This information is not available anywhere at the federal level that I know of because they have not started a separate category for CHL holders, which the qualifications for vary from state to state. There may be state records of such, but I’m not aware of them.

Whoops…I found some for Texas. No other state as of yet.

Here is the link……… http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.htm

It appears that there are approx. 1100 arrests per 100,000 residents of Texas for a violent crime committed by general population (male) in 2000.

There are approx. 175 arrests per 100,000 residents of Texas for a violent crime committed by a CHL holder (male) in 2000.

Female stats are much lower to the point that I cannot guess just looking at the graph, but there is a similar relationship.

Quote Markova---“That being that you need a really good reason to infringe a fundamental civil right. You haven't addressed that point either.”

I think some of you guys are arguing about the “probability” of a CHL holder doing harm to a LEO. Since my time as a LEO I have disarmed 2 people. That’s it. Most I just say “that’s fine” and get on with it. I don’t routinely disarm people, but if in a sensitive situation or a situation that I feel I need more control over, I have the right, and should to disarm so that nobody gets shot. (Think, suspicious activity fitting a certain M.O. or violent activity or drunkenness). I hope that addresses that.

I think some here think that the police do not respect the 2nd Amendment, but then explain why we are here? On a gun forum? I vote 2nd Amendment (and make my vote count by not tossing it away with Libertarian votes). I’m NRA, I’m LEAA (which is the ONLY group of law enforcement dedicated to victims advocacy and the 2nd Amendment rights of ordinary citizens.) If you want your voice heard, get active, I recommend you join the LEAA and or NRA if you have not already. Otherwise we’ve just got a lot of hot wind here.

Quote Makarova----“and I hope you will take up my challenge on the two points I brought up.”

Hey, as long as the conversation is civil and an exchange of knowledge and ideals (not beating a dead horse) we can talk.

Quote CropCircle-----“I think there is some kind of rule in the le community that goes like, "Do not ever give up your piece." (paraphrased) Am I wrong about that?”

Yep, couldn’t be more wrong. Many times going into a jail, prison, psych facility and occasional other “secured” locations you are required to surrender your weapon. This is actually routine. As for a cop disarming another cop at a traffic stop? Not very routine, I’m not sure why it happened to me and a lot of other cops would have been upset, but at the time I was out of my jurisdiction and not acting in a LEO capacity. Primary jurisdiction always wins. It’s kind of hard to explain, but it does happen and as far as I know, there is no “rule” other than regardless of your rank, your agency and your authority, the guy on scene in the uniform is in control, this is a safety issue.

Quote Cropcircle---“How come the cops have to take my piece apart and unload it and do other unsafe handling to unfamiliar firearms before they return it? If you don't mind being disarmed by the cop in the traffic stop, do you mind when they return your "Weapon" in a box in pieces?”

You assume that cops are unfamiliar with your firearm. I find that some cops are not gun aficionados, others are, but MOST if not all (there are one or two loose screws I’m sure) know how to unload almost any weapon you throw at them. As for handing your weapon back to you in pieces, I’m not sure about that. A basic field strip is not a big deal and I’ve never met someone who does so. Most the officers I know if they secure a weapon just unload it. Occasionally they may even remove the bullets from the magazine, but I haven’t seen anyone field strip one. As for why they do that? I guess handing a loaded gun to a stranger makes them nervous for some reason. It could be them, it could be you.

Quote Hawkeye---“or do they want to take it from the holster?”

In my case the officer told me to keep my hands on the wheel and removed the gun directly from my holster. (There was a question as to the validity of my police I.D. no instant NICS or TLETS available.)

Quote Hawkeye---“I mean, even if they tell you to do it, their squad car video would only pick up a perp reaching for a weapon, and it would go down as a good shoot, wouldn't it?”

Most police agencies that use dash cams also use microphones. What is said and done is heard. Normally if a cop asks you to hand them your weapon, say “Sir, I’d feel more comfortable if you’d get it.” He’ll either say never mind or retrieve it. Unless you’re acting weird, he’ll likely say, “just leave it there” or “just keep your hands in sight” or something like that.

Quote---9/7 (Nineseven)“I believe I said (or meant to say) assaults with injuries as far as the automatically reported assaults.”

Assault with injuries are likely to be charged, but not all injuries are assaults and not all assaults end up in injuries. You are speaking of “aggravated assault”? I think there is more balance then you know, though you are right, a lot of crime goes unreported. Scholars have been debating for years which is the greater crime indicator the UCR or NCVS. You would be one who subscribes to the NCVS.

Quote----9/7“Despite some claims that I am a cop basher, I have a great number of friends and acquaintances that are police officers”

The universal qualifier.


There....now I belive I've answered everything.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

this is a safety issue.

This is false. If it were a safety issue, the CCW license holder, barring specific threatening behavior on his part, would simply be instructed to keep his hands in view. Anytime a loaded weapon is handled and unloaded by unfamiliar hands, the level of safety for all involved is REDUCED, not enhanced. Therefore, the reason for the action has to lie elsewhere than safety.

 

[SolaScriptura139]

TheRealHawkeye:
What makes you think I would want a job that required that I become a pain in the butt in the opinion of 99% of the population?

First of all, I'd like to see anything backing up that ridiculous of a statement. Second of all, IF 99% of the population thinks of cops as a pain, it's only because that 99% of the population breaks the law. HERE'S A SIMPLE SOLUTION Stop breaking the law and you won't have any trouble with cops. Then I guess cops wouldn't a pain, now would they? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[Baron Holbach4]

Nineseven, while I'm in accord with the idea that a CHL holder is very unlikely to be a problem for an officer, some of the posts in this very thread make me believe that disarming everybody during a traffic stop is not at all unwise. Too many people just can't get a handle on the realities of the world we live in, and have too short a fuse. Either that or Keyboard Kommando-itis is attacking...

Art, what about those states that do not require the CHL holder to announce he is armed? Does this make the situation more dangerous for the LEO?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. Alduro said,

Quote:
Quote Cropcircle---“How come the cops have to take my piece apart and unload it and do other unsafe handling to unfamiliar firearms before they return it? If you don't mind being disarmed by the cop in the traffic stop, do you mind when they return your "Weapon" in a box in pieces?”

You assume that cops are unfamiliar with your firearm. I find that some cops are not gun aficionados, others are, but MOST if not all (there are one or two loose screws I’m sure) know how to unload almost any weapon you throw at them. As for handing your weapon back to you in pieces, I’m not sure about that. A basic field strip is not a big deal and I’ve never met someone who does so. Most the officers I know if they secure a weapon just unload it. Occasionally they may even remove the bullets from the magazine, but I haven’t seen anyone field strip one. As for why they do that? I guess handing a loaded gun to a stranger makes them nervous for some reason. It could be them, it could be you.

Thanks for the candor.

When you go into a secured place like a prison or such is your weapon returned field stripped? unloaded?

You may or may not be correct in your generalizations. Of the 8 or so cops that surrounded me and my firearm when I was arrested, not one of them knew how to lock back the slide. I stood there in their handcuffs watching them try.

I had previously dropped the mag and cleared the pipe (while watching the original cop in my rear view mirror). Yes, I know, not a really good idea because had I been caught doing it the cop who could have shot me would probably have gotten a commendation or something, who knows, even though I had committed no crime.

I had committed no crime.

I told the cop filling in the forms that my piece was a Hungarian Makarov (PA 63). He said OK. When I obtained a copy of the incident report he had called it a "Macelroy" 9MM. Somebody in the station succeeded in field stripping it by the time I got it back. I cannot assure you that there would not have been a ND though unless I had unloaded it myself.

Do you know how to lock back the slide on a PA 63?

 

[orangeninja]

Quote---“When you go into a secured place like a prison or such is your weapon returned field stripped? unloaded?”

Not usually, though some places have a clearing chamber where you are expected to clear the weapon before turning it over. So it does happen....though I haven't seen field stripped weapons returned either in secured areas or in the street. Unloaded, yes, frequently, but not stripped.

Quote---“I had committed no crime.”

It sounds like you have a personal beef with cops. Like one event soured you. I have had not so friendly altercations with cops in my past (before I became one) but eventually got over it. I can’t help your feelings, sorry they were hurt.....it seems to color your logic.

Quote---“Do you know how to lock back the slide on a PA 63?”

I’m not a weapons expert, but let’s just say I’m familiar. And yes. But you’re carrying of some surplus 9x18 that is not a “true” makarov and those cops not knowing how to operate it, really doesn’t mean that the cops are unfamiliar with weapons, just that they probably don’t have much experience with Hungarian surplus……….which is not one of the more likely weapons to see on the street.

Honestly I don’t know the first thing about an AR, but I can clear one. I don’t know the first thing about a Tokarev, but I can clear that too…..

Anyhow, I’m not knocking other states, but most cops I know of in Texas are more than a little familiar with firearms. This is one of those states where guns aren’t taboo.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Martin Luther ... I mean SolaScriptura said: First of all, I'd like to see anything backing up that ridiculous of a statement.

Ask ten people at random (not friends and/or relatives of policemen) the following question, and see what your own results show. Ask them if when they are driving and they notice that a police squad car is following them, and continues to follow them for several miles, if they feel reassured, neutral, or less at ease than before noticing the squad car. I am confident that my assessment will be proved correct. About nine out of ten will say that they feel less at ease than before they noticed the squad car.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

It sounds like you have a personal beef with cops. Like one event soured you. I have had not so friendly altercations with cops in my past (before I became one) but eventually got over it. I can’t help your feelings, sorry they were hurt.....it seems to color your logic.

An unbiased man understands that experience informs rather than colors logic.

 

[pharmer]

I'm late and haven't read every post. Here in Florida it says in the CWP manual that carrying a firearm is considered "breach of the peace" (or it did last time I read it). So cops have a lot more freedom to act. It isn't their fault that lawmakers forgot about "inalienable rights" when they wrote the law. But being originally from NJ, I think it's great to tuck my 6906 in my waistband (as I have done for almost 20 years) and live like a reasonably free man. Yes, stops are a PITA, but usually I should be driving slower. Then again I remember a time when contact with LE was normally a good experience. Joe

 

[NineseveN]

Alduro, it really doesn't matter to me what you think to be honest. If you think I'm anti-police, you're completely wrong, and choosing the easiest way to discredit and dismiss me. If you do a search of the 1300+ posts that I have, when you find anything involving law enforcement, you'll find a trend:

I am very against police officer practice on the topics of:

1. Covering everyone with the muzzle of a gun when it is not always warranted, which needlessly endangers suspects and can lead to unjustified death or serious injury through ND's and other mistakes.

2. Using Swat or Tac teams when they are not needed. They bring nothing to the table in a simple warrant, and their tactics are based around the extreme, which can and has caused suspects their lives.

3. Needlessly disarming otherwise law-abiding citizens during a simple traffic stop.

4. The militarization of the police force moving from peace officers to law enforcement

5. The loss of the basic principle that police officers serve us, derive their authority through powers that we grant them, not the other way around.

6. Double standards for police and common folks (and the thin blue line etc...)

7. Anytime someone criticizes the police, they're labeled as a "cop basher".

Most of the above are related in some way, so they can be separate issues or interlinked into the same discussion or incident.

Just about anything else, and I am behind the police. I understand and acknowledge they do a tough job, but so do a lot of people not in the police communities. I understand that it can be a dangerous profession, but most of the claims I see here are exaggerated. We don't live in Lebanon or Beirut; you're not policing a war zone. I think I have proven that with the statistics that I offered according to your own cited metrics (deaths per 100,000) with the info from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics...police aren't even in the top 10.

I think the police need to be given a break in some situations. I think the public and the media can be too critical at times based on a lack of knowledge of police procedure and the tactics needed to resolve a situation; and sometimes they just have an axe to grind. I have participated in maybe 10 threads where I was in a position to completely disagree with the police or their procedures...bounce that against the larger number of discussions where I supported the police and went to great lengths to illustrate it (on this and other forums).

Take the infamous pepperball death in Massachusetts thread where I was warned not once, but twice by MODs because I was going nuts with frustration trying to get it through people's heads that the police in that case did the best thing they could have, and that something unforeseen and unfortunate happened...that's life.

Or the Air Marshal thread where the bi-polar guy said he had a bomb and he was killed by the Marshals.

It's easy for you to make subtle accusations or outright accuse me of being a cop basher, but if you look through my posts, you'll see that I simply call them as I see them without bias either way....which is more than I can say for most of you police officers on this board. When a cop is accused of wrong-doing, you all chime in and berate us for jumping to conclusions with incomplete evidence because we can't really know that the cop is guilty simply from the information in a news story; but then you guys turn around and act as judge and jury whenever a commoner is accused of something in a news story. Double standard and obvious bias on may occasions.


Right now, here's where we stand (you and I):

I countered the notion that police work is so dangerous on a fatality per 100,000 level, you dropped it...after all statistics don't lie, right?

Now were arguing over something that cannot be statistically proven, and to be honest, your replies have been lackluster, totally ignoring the obvious reality of life.

If you're trying to tell me that police officers are truly the victims of assault but fail to report it on a regular basis, I am sorry, that just doesn't jive what logic and the reality that I know. You are welcomed to try and change that perception, but it just smells funny.

If you also mean to contend that the larger majority of assaults between two private citizens are reported, then I have to wonder what kind of area you patrol. Take a ride on Broad Street in Philly one night, see the many assaults and fights, then wait for the police to come and log that assault as a statistic. Try East Liberty, Lawrenceville, Beltzhoover, St. Clair Village, Garfield or the North Side in Pittsburgh for a night...or any other number of crime-ridden ghettos in the country, the kind of neighborhoods I grew up in and lived in for near 20 years...where I cut my teeth on the realities of how tough and effective on crime the police really are and where I found out what a violent crime truly was. Maybe you need to get your hands dirty before you can come back and tell me that the majority of assaults are reported in these areas where someone is assaulted about as often as a commercial is shown on your favorite TV show. In these areas, unless the police see it during the event, or there is a dead body or a bullet or severe knife wound that requires emergency hospital attention, the police aren't even bothered over it.

 

[orangeninja]

Ask ten people at random (not friends and/or relatives of policemen) the following question, and see what your own results show.

Actually that is not how legitimate research is done. You have to split the demographic evenly, then take a substantial sampling, say 10,000, but of course you would have to have a hypothesis and ensure that the questions asked were not leading, etc. You know, the stuff graduate students do. But don't take this a exhaustive, people spend decades submitting topics and methods of research for dissertations and manuscripts all the time. That is how research is, your method is about as sound as walking into a KFC and asking who likes fried chicken.

An unbiased man understands that experience informs rather than colors logic.

Not so...to truly find truth you have to be objective in your observations and apply the best truth that supports these observations. Otherwise you are proscribing a simple testiment of faith that your preconcieve notion or manner of which to deduce fact is correct, which of course no unbiased man would assume.

It's easy for you to make subtle accusations or outright accuse me of being a cop basher...

I never in fact labeled you a cop basher, in fact I belive that I have patiently answered all of your concerns in a logical and truthful manner. I honestly don't really care what you belive. You asked for hard data, you got it, you asked for explanations you got them. I didn't take my time to answer your concerns because I'm trying to convince you otherwise, but instead everyone else who has or may read this thread objectively in an honest search for answers. Your arguments have been negated and your fears exposed to be mostly unfounded. Sorry if that stings.

If you re-read my posts you will see that all 7 of your concerns have been answered.

"I countered the notion that police work is so dangerous on a fatality per 100,000 level, you dropped it...after all statistics don't lie, right?"

Actually I gave you data on assaults, if you were to look at the data for homicides you will find a similar statistical comparison when dealing with percentage base. If you want the hard numbers, I gave you a link to the UCR, crunch your own data friend.

"If you also mean to contend that the larger majority of assaults between two private citizens are reported, then I have to wonder what kind of area you patrol."

Actually I don't care whether they are reported or not. Policy is not made upon assumptions and "dark horse" statistics. It is made on hard numbers. Therefore police procedure and public procedure as it is now is based upon the UCR by and large. There are groups who cite the NCVS for policy decisions and they tend to be the "gun grabbers" because NCVS data is easily colored. I recommend you study both. As for me, I work off of the UCR numbers, which may not be precise, but it is the closest thing we have.

"Maybe you need to get your hands dirty before you can come back and tell me that the majority of assaults are reported in these areas where someone is assaulted about as often as a commercial is shown on your favorite TV show."

You don't know anything about how or where I grew up, suffice to say, I've seen the ugly on the other side of the tracks, I just didn't let it define who I am. So again, you argue against hard numbers and statistics that the government has spent millions to collect and academics have spent entire careers studying, but since they don't match up with your limited experience, they must not matter. How does it feel to be the center of the universe?

Sorry if you had such a hard life. Happy Easter by the way.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Actually that is not how legitimate research is done.

Now you're being silly. I never suggested that this was a rigorous scientific approach. Having a Masters Degree is Psychology, I am not unfamiliar with the scientific method, but to suggest that you cannot discover useful information without a rigorous scientific study is bordering on Cartesian in this context, don't you think? You don't need to conduct a rigorous scientific study to determine if it's raining outside, or if the chair on which you are sitting is actually made of solid matter. You pop your head out and take a look, and you observe that, when you sit on the chair, you don't fall to the ground. Asking ten people at random the question I suggested (eliminating those who are cops themselves, friends with, or related to cops) will give you a pretty good idea what most people think of them, even if you won't be able to publish your results in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

"An unbiased man understands that experience informs rather than colors logic."

Not so...to truly find truth you have to be objective in your observations and apply the best truth that supports these observations. Otherwise you are proscribing a simple testiment of faith that your preconcieve notion or manner of which to deduce fact is correct, which of course no unbiased man would assume.

You remind me of those who insist that all juror's with any knowledge relevant to the events in question be eliminated in the voir dire process.

Let's take an elegant Aristotelian syllogism as an example of your error. 1) All tigers have stripes. 2) This animal has no stripes. 3) Therefore this animal is not a tiger. Experience informs the logic here at the point of the premise, i.e., "All tigers have stripes." Knowing this from experience makes the logic and the conclusion valid, i.e., "This animal has no stripes, therefore this animal is not a tiger."

 

[NineseveN]

Your arguments have been negated and your fears exposed to be mostly unfounded. Sorry if that stings.

What thread are you reading? You gave hard numbers, I countered them with my own, you did not dispute them. I gave an argument that many citizen VS citizen assault are not reported while most citizen VS LEO assaults are, cited my own experience for this and some common sense and belief, you held fast to the report, which cannot address things that are not included and instead of trying to back up what seemed to be your contention that most citizen VS citizen crimes are reported and the ratios are closer than I think, you simply say you don't care because policy is not made with "dark horse" statistics. You didn't refute anything really.

If you cannot quantify the results with hard numbers because no report can or has captured all of the relevant data, then you cannot use the report as a sole qualifier for your conclusion without your conclusion being inherently flawed. I am pointing out where the report is flawed, thus your conclusions flawed. If you have some sort of hard data that suggests that most citizen VS citizen crime is reported, I'd like to see it.

Actually I gave you data on assaults, if you were to look at the data for homicides you will find a similar statistical comparison when dealing with percentage base. If you want the hard numbers, I gave you a link to the UCR, crunch your own data friend.

Um, I gave them to you, 21 deaths per 100,000, from the 2004 UCR. Again, not even in the top 10 fatalities per 100,000 list of professions.

Actually I don't care whether they are reported or not. Policy is not made upon assumptions and "dark horse" statistics. It is made on hard numbers. Therefore police procedure and public procedure as it is now is based upon the UCR by and large. There are groups who cite the NCVS for policy decisions and they tend to be the "gun grabbers" because NCVS data is easily colored. I recommend you study both. As for me, I work off of the UCR numbers, which may not be precise, but it is the closest thing we have.

See, I say, "many citizen VS citizen assaults do not get reported, making any comparison between those and citizen VS cop assaults inherently flawed". You say, 'but the UCR says and the NCVS says'; which are both reports....tell me, on what planet does the existence of the report itself negate the argument that the report itself cannot be not accurate because it does not take into account all of the necessary data? Do they have gravity there? I am questioning the accuracy of the report based on a well-known facet of citizen VS citizen crime in the higher crime areas; many, many things do not get reported. No one sees anything, unless there is a body or a gunshot wound, the police do not get involved unless they get lucky. It's not their fault, these people often don't want the help of the police. That's a fact of life in the ghetto.

You don't know anything about how or where I grew up, suffice to say, I've seen the ugly on the other side of the tracks, I just didn't let it define who I am. So again, you argue against hard numbers and statistics that the government has spent millions to collect and academics have spent entire careers studying, but since they don't match up with your limited experience, they must not matter. How does it feel to be the center of the universe?

And what report cites the percentage of assaults reported VS actual assaults committed? You see, I can argue from experience, because I have some. You, all you have are your reports, which do not take into account the subject matter of our argument. You can't cite a report and say the report proves that most citizen VS citizen assaults are reported when it does no such thing, it only gives you numbers on what was actually reported (duh, why do I even have to argue this?).

If you're saying something different, then I think you failed to understand my argument.

I never in fact labeled you a cop basher, in fact I believe that I have patiently answered all of your concerns in a logical and truthful manner. I honestly don't really care what you believe. You asked for hard data, you got it, you asked for explanations you got them. I didn't take my time to answer your concerns because I'm trying to convince you otherwise, but instead everyone else who has or may read this thread objectively in an honest search for answers. Your arguments have been negated and your fears exposed to be mostly unfounded. Sorry if that stings.

Go back and read post #153. I stated that I was not a cop basher, I said that I had many friends in the police communities. You made the following remark in response: "The universal qualifier." Did that statement impeach my professing that I am not a cop basher, and an example of this is that I consider many police officers my friend, or did it support it? If it did neither, why bother saying anything at all. The way it read was that you were calling it into question with a smidgeon of sarcasm. Perhaps you failed to communicate what you wanted to or I read you wrong.



P.S.
I don't feel that I had a hard life, nowhere did I say that I did, nor did I say that I wanted your pity for it even if I did. I gave some experience from my life. At present, I am happy, I make good money and live in a nice place with a new car and plenty of guns and neato toys. Don't cry for me, Argentina.


I think maybe we're done here.

 

[Art Eatman]

Seven pages? Over a trivial event where nothing happened?

No mas.

Art