Seized by the Manchester, New Hampshire PD for Open Carry

[OF]

It's obvious to me at this point that there is such a major disconnect between the cops on this thread justifying the actions of these guys and the rest of us that it's like we're not even speaking the same language. The concerns of the non-cops (citizens isn't really the right term to distiguish them from us, as cops are 'but' citizens as well) are dismissed as whining from people who just don't understand how hard it is to be a cop. Boo freaking hoo. If only we knew just how bad they want to treat us, we'd take our beatings and shut up about it.

You're absolutely right, he wasn't 'tackled', all they did was 'take control of the weapon' and then, graciously, 'escorted him from the business'. I stand corrected. Mvpel should thank them for their service and be grateful they didn't just shoot him.

- Gabe

 

[Don Gwinn]

Don, as a pointed out in an ealier post, things could have been handeled in a different fashion by both parties involved.

With all due respect, 12, that's a pretty empty tautology. By definition, both sides could have handled things differently. Which side should have done so? MVPEL didn't break the law. The cops did. MVPEL didn't physically attack anyone. The cops did. Trying to portray this as a simple misunderstanding that MVPEL somehow caused is dishonest.


I still don't understand this concept that since someone complained about him and he was doing something uncommon (NOT illegal, NOT threatening, just uncommon by your own admission) it was OK for the police to molest him physically. That just isn't so.
If someone reported a fight in the park and when you got there two guys were sparring with gloves, would you say it was acceptable (though of course it "could have been handled differently") for the first responding officers to take in the scene and then tackle the two men? After all, what they're doing is unusual, even if it's not against the law, and if you do unusual things that some people don't like then you just have to accept the fact that the police may rough you up for no apparent reason.



TCSD, I am NOT the one who said that the police must treat everyone as a threat and this justifies physically attacking people who are offering no threat at all. Your attempt to ascribe that belief to me is, I hope, a misunderstanding of my position. I thought it was pretty clear, though, so maybe it's just a way to score points.
It was 12-34hom who offered that opinion. All I did was ask whether he thought it should extend to everyone who carries a gun openly in public, and police officers were the first to come to mind. Around here they routinely carry guns in mufti when off duty.

Since he didn't answer, I'll ask you: You're off duty. You're carrying your gun. A citizen calls you in as a "man with a gun" and the police arrive as you're settling in with a good book to wait for your wife to finish buying shoes. Next thing you know, someone is attempting to take your gun from behind. Somehow you realize it's another officer before you start throwing elbows, so you are shoved against a wall while the officer maintains control of your weapon. Only then are you asked any questions or even allowed to see the officers.

Now, imagine that the next day you get the chance to speak to their superiors. Would you, as 12-34 apparently would, say "Hey, they could have handled it better, but then again, I should have known better than to carry a gun in public. Really, it was as much my fault as theirs."?

I wouldn't.

 

[tcsd1236]

"tcsd
1 question. Do you ever carry off duty?
If so this could just as easily have been you!"
I am always armed unless I am in a state I do not have a permit for. Difference being that I carry in a fanny pack specifically because it conceals the weapon and it is not visible; aside from being able to carry spare mags and ID conveniently.

"Even if concealed someone could notice your gun.Would this give any officer the right to manhandle you?"

I would expect to be treated at least initially as the thread starter was: weapon secured by the officer, removed from the scene and interviewed.

"If you are so concerned about the possibility of being harmed get a new job"

The assault levels and homicide levels against officers are very real. Check out the FBI stats if you don't believe me. I happen to like my job, as do most officers. The danger factor is not such that we should leave the Job, it also doesn't mean that we should abandon reasonable officer safety practices such as were described by the thread starter just because a few people who like to Monday Morning QB think we should do things "their way".

"This is excessive force and assault."

No, it is not.

"I hope you do not treat your local citizens this way"

Depending on the situation we would be responding to, I would not hesitate to secure the firearm, escort the person from the scene and interview as was done in the reported incident.

"Please realize you're no more important to your family than we are to ours"

This incident has nothing to do with my family versus your family. It has to do with a report of a man with a gun in a public place and how the incident was resolved.

"We all deserve to be treated with respect."

And the method of handling the incident that I described is not disrespectful.I would not have had the discussion the thread starter had as to "why are you armed", but the initial contact reported is totally on par with standard LEO procedure.

"I get the impression you are one of the leos who think the badge makes you you above us. You have no right to accost anyone who has broken no laws!"

I don't think that, actually. And until the officers conduct their interview, they DON'T know whether the person has broken any laws.You appear to believe that officers are mindreaders and will automatically know who is or is not a good / bad guy.

 

[tcsd1236]

TCSD, I am NOT the one who said that the police must treat everyone as a threat and this justifies physically attacking people who are offering no threat at all. Your attempt to ascribe that belief to me is, I hope, a misunderstanding of my position.

If I ascribed it to you I did not intend to. Perhaps the manner in which I cut and pasted made it appear so. I am finding that the quote function doesn't want to cooperate with me for long quotes and I am reverting to simply cutting and pasting .
See my earlier comments to others which should answer your other questions.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Wait, I think that bears repeating:

The STANDARD procedure, when confronting a man armed with a handgun in a jurisdiction where it is perfectly legal to be armed with a handgun, who has done absolutely nothing threatening in your presence, is to sneak up behind him and perform a gun grab?

REALLY?

I admit I find that shocking. I guess I'm naive. The standard operating procedure for dealing with a citizen who possesses a perfectly legal object you don't think he should have is to sneak up behind him and take it away.

Fascinating.

And if you don't know any police officers who are drunk with personal power, come on out to Virden, IL. I can introduce you to several. Our department is famous for corruption and arrogance in this area. I'm a big guy with a short haircut, and when I recently told a new acquaintance from Springfield where I'm from, she looked me up and down and said "You're not a cop down there, are you?"

 

[tcsd1236]

"Don't feed the TROLLS. Some career cop on his way up the ladder has got to play the part. Even when they are the HERO only in their own mind.
What oath have these trolls taken. To what constitution.
Open Carry is legal in NH.
This thread may need to be locked up now so Mvpel can post updates.
Some people who work must limit review time and hagling adds lotts of additive and filler. The beef is harder to find now.
If the act of open carry is so scary then start a new thread to vent your worry.
Mvpel, you may need some admin assist to limit this thread or rebase the updates elsewhere. I am looking forward to more respect of the 2nd Amd. I know it will mean more work,even pain like yours by many more of us.
Mannchester PD may have some wind of this story on the internet allready. I have noticed a copy on 3+ sites plus many other refrences and links."

There aren't any trolls posting here. Simply because we are having a dialogue in which not everyone agrees does not make some of us trolls. If you expect that there will always be harmony and agreement on every topic discussed, you have unrealistic expectations.

 

[OF]

I'm with Don: you have got to be kidding me. There are alot of people involved in this incident that are lucky not to have any extra holes in them at this point. The cops are lucky mvpel didn't reflexively try to defend himself from the gun-grab, as would have been his right to do.

Unbelievable.

- Gabe

 

[thumbody]

tscd
I often carry a Buck folding knife on my belt .This is legal. If you got a call about a man with a knife and I was standing there minding my own business when you came to investigate should I expect the same treatment or does this only apply to firearms.

 

[Shane333]

tcsd1236,

Holy cow! I've heard the saying, "may your chains rest lightly upon you," but in your case I think you would VOLUNTEER to wear them. All for the sake of justifying the agressive, illegal actions of another LEO.

 

[cordex]

And certainly, in the responses of others here, I see comments that equate with behavior they want officers to use that equates with "letting your guard down".

Let me clarify, then. With two officers, I think the reasonable thing to do is to have one observe from a distance away - prepared to either jump in with his baton or pepper spray, or use deadly force as necessary. The other officer should observe from a distance, check for threatening movements or any reason to be suspicious of the gentleman (browsing the Sci-fi section doesn't count) and approach them calmly. The officer should then say something like this:
"Excuse me, sir ... could you keep your hands in front of you? Thanks. You're carrying a gun, right? Okay, you leave yours in your holster, and I'll leave mine in my holster. Sound fair? Good. I got a report of someone with a weapon and had to come check it out. You haven't done anything to warrant a call to the police, have you? Okay. Just as a suggestion, you might want to conceal that if you've got the proper permit to do so. Have a nice day!"
If the officer then felt it was necessary to disarm the individual, a simple "Sir, I'd like to hold on to your gun while I'm talking with you. Please put your hands on your head while I remove it." would be preferable over attempting to grab the weapon from the belt of someone not even suggesting a threat.

That would strike me as a proper balance of officer safety and politeness that your law-abiding employer deserves.

Forceably disarming everyone you see with a gun does not strike the same balance.

If I were called to jury duty in a case where Mvpel defended himself against an unknown, weapon-grabbing assailant who turned out to be a cop (assuming the circumstances were as presented here), I'd not only find him to be innocent, but I'd ask the judge why the head of department training wasn't on trial.

And the method of handling the incident that I described is not disrespectful.I would not have had the discussion the thread starter had as to "why are you armed", but the initial contact reported is totally on par with standard LEO procedure.

Maybe in your Great Free State of New York, but that has not been my experience in Indiana. In fact the "leave your gun in your holster and I'll leave mine in my holster" line has been used on me twice by local police. Funny, that.

 

[P95Carry]

You appear to believe that officers are mindreaders and will automatically know who is or is not a good / bad guy.

No tcsd .. no one is a mind reader ... fair enough. BUT ......

I come back to mvpel's point which I amplified earlier .. what possible problem could there have been in observing for a short time .. maybe just seconds .... and then I would have thought evaluating that there was no immediate threat, at all. Then .. simply a ''word in the ear''.

How could his standing browsing books .... gun secure .... be seen as threatening or hostile (except perhaps by the dufus who called in the 911!). I am still seeing their action as excessive, premature, and irrational .... had they assessed on the spot .. instead of seemingly ... only going by a report and then wading in.

 

[txgho1911]

BATH party minders?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You appear to believe that officers are mindreaders and will automatically know who is or is not a good / bad guy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not mindreaders. Just minders of the public for the public.
This is not a police state. Some parts of the US may not enjoy the full respect and admiration for the BOR to the extent of most of the states.

Many folks here and on other forums would like to see more complete restoration of the BOR. All of them. They are under attack daily.
Who is going to follow orders to disarm the public!
What part of "will not be infringed" do you not understand.
I didn't realise I was short on freedoms as I grew up. I was not born yesterday.

 

[flatrock]

This incident has nothing to do with my family versus your family. It has to do with a report of a man with a gun in a public place and how the incident was resolved.

Very true. But a man with a gun in a public place isn't against the law. Did the 911 opperator ask the caller if the person with the gun was threatening anyone or doing something suspicious? If the opperator didn't get the facts, then did their job wrong and need to be trained to do it properly.

Did the officers have a chance to talk to the caller before confronting the suspect? If so, did they inform that person that openly carrying a gun isn't against the law and ask them if the suspect did anything else to raise their suspicion?

When the officers found their suspect facing the other direction, dressed reasonably well, and carrying the gun in a holster while READING A BOOK, why did they feel the need to "secure the gun" by force when they had seen no evidence of a criminal act?

Cars can be pretty dangerous weapons, do you feel the need to secure the cars of people driving by to prevent them from attacking you with one?

It's not even a constitutional right to drive a car. At least in Ohio the right to bear arms is a constitutional right and open carry has been confirmed by our Supreme Court to be an individual constitutional right. I don't know if NH's constitution has a similar clause or not. However, the police do not have a right to physically restrain someone who is doing nothing wrong. They need to have a reason to use force to restrain someone, and legally carrying a gun should not be a valid reason unless the circumstances show that the person might be a danger. Standing in a bookstore reading a book isn't a circumstance that warrents the use of force by the police.

The police overreacted. They handled the situation wrong. They need to learn that what they did was wrong and learn how to handle the situation properly.

It would be nice if that could happen without a lawsuit.

 

[Don Gwinn]

OK, let's cut through the BS right now, TCSD and 12-34hom. I'm going to lay it out for you. I am not being sarcastic. I find it literally incredible that either of you would behave the way these Manchester officers did or that you would countenance that behavior in officers you supervise by saying "both sides could have handled it differently."
I am using "incredible" in its original meaning. Knowing what I do about both of you, I do not believe you would do it. I do not believe you would make excuses for an officer you supervised who did it. I may be wrong, but that's what I think.


I also think the ONLY reason you're so reluctant to come out and say so here is that you're afraid that doing so would encourage the usual suspects who keep hitting you over the head with "JBT" and "Kitten Stomper" every time you show your face.

That's understandable, but it's never going to be a convincing.



With that said, here's what disturbs me so much about the officer safety argument. Even if you accept that the officer's safety is more important than the "suspect's" rights, (and like it or not, that's what our courts have essentially decided) it still doesn't hold water because the officers in this case chose the more dangerous approach over a safer one.

Talking calmly to a man who has made no threatening statements or movements and appears to be calm content, but who does have a handgun on his belt,

or,

Attempting a gun grab?

Which of those is safer? Yes, the calm and collected man in the nice shirt MIGHT pull his gun on you if you talk to him calmly, but can you tell me with a straight face that struggling over a handgun with a person who probably thinks you intend to take his handgun and shoot him with it is more dangerous than interviewing a person who has a holstered handgun?

As I said, I don't think you really believe that. I think you're frantically digging defensive positions in anticipation of the arrival of the He-Man-Cop-Haters Club.

 

[tcsd1236]

"tscd
I often carry a Buck folding knife on my belt .This is legal. If you got a call about a man with a knife and I was standing there minding my own business when you came to investigate should I expect the same treatment or does this only apply to firearms."

We would not be getting a call like that about a belt knife.

 

[tcsd1236]

Maybe in your Great Free State of New York, but that has not been my experience in Indiana. In fact the "leave your gun in your holster and I'll leave mine in my holster" line has been used on me twice by local police. Funny, that.

It only takes the bad guy, if he is one, to draw and fire. Not even enough time for the officer or the overwatch officer you describe to react before eatting a bullet.Better that the weapon in question be secured during the interview.

 

[kbr80]

Like I have said before in this thread. What happened to mvpel was assault. Plain and simple. The officers in question, should be charged with assault. But since we give these officer the nintendo magic mushroom ability to be immune from these incidents due to officer safety, I doubt anything will happen to the officers. Mvpel will most probably get a settlement, or some sort of vindication, and that is a good thing, the officer will not get what they need, which is criminal charges for assault filed on them. That is the problem here. We, who are not LEO's would have been in jail for this behavior. We need to start holding cops accountable for there actions, and stop looking at these incidents as learning experiences. Yes, police work is dangerous, but you know that, or should have known that before you pinned on that badge. If not, you need another line of work because you are a danger to society.

 

[sar]

The more I read these posts and see that it has become a police vs. us arguement I keep seeing one thing that bothers me - people keep saying this mvpel had his gun secure. He did not, as evidenced by it being taken away from him so easily. I fear that if mvpel pushes the police dept they may push back on some grounds that he was not responsible.

 

[kbr80]

It only takes the bad guy, if he is one, to draw and fire. Not even enough time for the officer or the overwatch officer you describe to react before eatting a bullet.Better that the weapon in question be secured during the interview.

So, it guilty until proven other wise. Nice police state mentality.

The more I read these posts and see that it has become a police vs. us arguement I keep seeing one thing that bothers me - people keep saying this mvpel had his gun secure. He did not, as evidenced by it being taken away from him so easily. I fear that if mvpel pushes the police dept they may push back on some grounds that he was not responsible.

Hate to burst your bubble here, but no gun is 100% secure, unless is locked up in a safe. Granted mvpel should have been more aware, but thats not the point here. Mvpel was assaulted. Plain and simple.

 

[tcsd1236]

......Talking calmly to a man who has made no threatening statements or movements and appears to be calm content, but who does have a handgun on his belt,......

Well, I have already dissected this from my viewpoint enough that my perspective is pretty clear.

I would have handled the actual securing of the gun in one of two ways: either as it was described, or by taking the guys gun arm and hustling him out of the store and securing the gun outside where there are presumably fewer people if the bullets start to fly, then doing the interview there.

And as I mentioned earlier, I wouldn't have preached about the guys right to carry a gun because when it gets right down to it, I have no issue with law-abiding people carrying, but until we are able to ascertain that he IS a legal gun owner, we have to take precautions. If we just Barney'd along and said "well, he MUST be a good guy" and didn't secure the gun and he wound up firing, you can bet that if we survived, we WOULD be out of a job, facing a lawsuit or two, etc, for failing to act.

I have alrady stated that you folks being gunnies take a certain manner of conduct amongst gun owners for granted as "normal". I really don't think that you understand how the non-gun owning public views incidents like this one.

 

[tcsd1236]

So, it guilty until proven other wise. Nice police state mentality.

Potential threat until proven otherwise. Its not a police state mentality, just reality. Violence can come from a 12 year old or a 90 year old. There is no stereotypical criminal that can be treated one way and everyone else treated another..

 

[OF]

I really don't think that you understand how the non-gun owning public views incidents like this one.

I don't care. And neither should you. You are sworn to uphold the law, not play to popular opinion.

- Gabe

 

[kbr80]

I would have handled the actual securing of the gun in one of two ways: either as it was described, or by taking the guys gun arm and hustling him out of the store and securing the gun outside where there are presumably fewer people if the bullets start to fly, then doing the interview there.

The officers there had no cause to do that either. Mvpel was minding his own business, legally carrying in an OPEN CARRY legal state. Where is the PC to secure his weapon? I dont see it. And dont scream OFFICER SAFETY, it makes you look like the ANTIS that scream ITS FOR THE CHILDREN.

 

[OF]

Potential threat until proven otherwise.

You don't get to assault 'potential threats' at least not in the America I live in. Anyone is a potential threat. That's life.

- Gabe

 

[kbr80]

Potential threat until proven otherwise.

Isnt that profiling? So if you see a run down house, in a decent neighborhood, are you going to raid it, guns drawn, no warrant, because it could be a potential crack house, a danger to the public. See, this is about cops, breaking the law, that they are supposed to be versed in, and sworn to uphold. But in some LEO'S minds, they are above the law. But hey, its for the children and officer safety, to hell with the rights of us serfs.:banghead: