Sherrif demands I remove my firearm

[gamestalker]

Thanks for all the responses, even though my post some how turned into to more of an arguement than suggestions. I didn't necessairly have a problem with her stopping by to check on things, quite nice of her to show concern. But she never expressed that concern.

And yes, the car was on my property, not running, just had one door open to let it cool down some. And as to her gender, I was affraid if I mentioned that aspect, it might turn into some kind discrimination threat toward a woman LEO, I was correct. I don't think twice about whether a woman or man violates my rights one way or the other, the fact remains that LEO stepped over the line.

What really distrubed me the most was that this LEO displayed very poor judgement when she asked me to remove my sidearm. That action in it's self could have ended with a tragic out come if I had tripped, or other wise made an unintentional wrong move. In our county officer involved shootings are very common place. This is a pretty violent city.

I'm going to take the advice of some here and follow up with a meeting with her superior. The office is a stones throw from my home. I would like to have the meeting with her present so she can see and hear that my intentions are sincere regarding her safety, and that of others in such circumstances.

Thanks
GS

 

[rajb123]

I would make a formal complaint.

 

[zxcvbob]

The gun was secure in your holster. Whether she intended it to be or not, the order to disarm was a trap. You reach for the gun to put it on the ground and she shoots you. That appears to be what happened to Erik Scott.

 

[jrdolall]

Sounds like a Catch 22. The LEO felt, for whatever reason, that the open car door deserved investigating. I don't know your laws so I will ASSUME that she was just trying to make sure there was not a theft in progress or some other crime involving a door left open and a car not running. She approached the car under the assumption that there was a problem and you come walking towards her with a sidearm on your belt. Her first thought SHOULD have been that criminals rarely carry sidearms in a holster on their belt but apparently she immediately perceived a threat. It sounds like a lack of experience on her part that could have turned ugly but I doubt it was her intention.

I would talk to her supervisor and make surte he/she is aware of the situation so that the officer can be properly trained.

 

[armoredman]

The law reads,

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03102.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS
13-3102. Misconduct involving weapons; defenses; classification; definitions...

...K. If a law enforcement officer contacts a person who is in possession of a firearm, the law enforcement officer may take temporary custody of the firearm for the duration of that contact...

...M. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Contacted by a law enforcement officer" means a lawful traffic or criminal investigation, arrest or detention or an investigatory stop by a law enforcement officer that is based on reasonable suspicion that an offense has been or is about to be committed.

Ask for the police report of this incident. If none was generated, then quite possibly she lacked the lawful authority to disarm you.

 

[Black Knight]

Instead of filing a formal complaint maybe a different tact should be used. Call her supervisor and inform them you are not complaining and that you support their efforts to make your part of the world safer. Tell the supervisor what happened and that it could be a officer safety issue as well as a citizen safety issue. This deputy may have been fresh off her field training duty and academy so she may have been overly apprehensive at the beginning. Let the supervisor inform deputies that not everyone with a gun is an actual threat to them. Some new officers fresh out of the academy have been drilled that every gun is a threat and take that idea to the extreme. This deputy may just need some experience in order to slow down and see what the situation really is before reacting. Who knows this deputy may then make a mental note that here is a real good guy and cut you some slack later on over some minor thing.

 

[razorback2003]

There's not a lot of real peace officers left. More and more police feel the need to be more military like in appearance and treatment of the public. I understand police safety but I also think this is not occupied Iraq.

 

[gordy]

Number one rule for a police officer is you (the officer) go home tonight. For all she knows you are some crazy guy with a gun. Private property or not she must have felt a reason to stop and check out the car with open doors, It could have been abandon for all she knows, stolen and left there buy some crazy guy who is killing the family who lives there. Her saftey is number one in her world. I don't blame her at all for her way of handling the situation. It could have been much worse for you then it was.

 

[Deanimator]

It could have been much worse for you then it was.

And that in itself is a VERY sad commentary on contemporary "law enforcement".

These days, I would be far LESS surprised to see a UFO than to see anything approaching good judgment on the part of cops.

 

[ec4321]

Number one rule for a police officer is you (the officer) go home tonight. For all she knows you are some crazy guy with a gun..... Her saftey is number one in her world. I don't blame her at all for her way of handling the situation. It could have been much worse for you then it was.

I am sure the OP wanted to live and 'Go Home' as well. For all he knows LEO was a crazy and / or untrained and would go off half cocked when startled over nothing and shot him and his wife. Point is, I don't get how LEO's fears, wants, needs are always used to justify anything and everything at everyone else's expense.

It could have been abandon for all she knows, stolen and left there buy some crazy guy who is killing the family who lives there.

Could have been an elephant that took it and flew off in an helicopter too. I don't see how wild theories without facts to support them somehow supports (or for that matter contradicts) the actions of the LEO here.

 

[gatorjames85]

reasonable suspicion

This would be the crux of the matter. Without additional details we don't know about, this LEO probably didn't have it. Also, there is no way that I would wan't to grab a handgun in a LEO's presence. That is asking for big trouble.

 

[dubya450]

+1 razorback2003

Its the same in my area. I haven't delt with or heard of a friendly cop for a long time. Anytime I deal with or hear about someone dealing with them they're always hard nosed jerks that act like everyone is a methed out murderer. Not saying there aren't decent police officers around, I know there are, but in the past few years it seems like they're all "tough guys" for no good reason. People would have alot more respect if they didn't treat everyone like criminals for things as petty as a speeding ticket.

 

[Salmoneye]

I often leave the doors open on my vehicles in my yard in the summer...

I see many making excuses for this LEO, but I see no articulable reason for that person having been on this man's property...

She could have called in the plate and found that it belonged right where it was...

Given that fact, any 'command' to disarm is not only illogical, but holds no weight of law (all in my not so humble opinion of course)...

 

[Cosmoline]

Personally I'd rather be alive than right. In any interaction with an LEO while carrying--concealed or open--you should keep your palms up and comply with instructions. To get stubborn about it is foolish, and people have been killed for a lot less. There are plenty of other places where ignoring the officer's instructions in that manner would get you shot. Take it very, very seriously.

You can make your complaint after the fact if you feel the officer didn't have cause to be on your property. But in general--invest in a locked gate! Private property that's neither fenced nor gated doesn't tend to be respected by anyone. People are idiots, and you don't want to have to be chasing them off all the time. Make a barrier, and use it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I don't get how LEO's fears, wants, needs are always used to justify anything and everything at everyone else's expense....

Because society has given LEOs a particular job to do with certain duties, the discharge of which put them at greater risk of harm than the rest of us. Their jobs require that they go places and do things that the rest of us can avoid.

You may disagree, but that doesn't matter. In the real world the law recognizes an LEO's interest in his or her safety and a societal interest in LEO safety.

 

[ec4321]

Because society has given LEOs a particular job to do with certain duties, the discharge of which put them at greater risk of harm than the rest of us. Their jobs require that they go places and do things that the rest of us can avoid.

You may disagree, but that doesn't matter. In the real world the law recognizes an LEO's interest in his or her safety and a societal interest in LEO safety.

I do agree that it is prudent for an officer's safety to be a factor, but not the end all. Proper procedures that don't put put anyone at risk are better than cowboy tactics and only considering the LEO's safety, IMO.

As far as my position being irrelevant, it's just as relevant as yours - as a member of said society.

 

[razorback2003]

Community policing is not being taught. A lot of LEO's sadly see the public as a whole as their enemy. This causes distrust among communities. Police dressed in military fatigues when patrolling does not help the problem.

Whatever happened to a good ironed slacks, shiny shoes, and nice polished leather gun belt and holster?

 

[tnxdshooter]

Lawsuit unfortunately and sad to say is the only way they are going to learn their lesson.


Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2

 

[armoredman]

Salmoneye, please refer to the Arizona law link I posted. As for this;

Number one rule for a police officer is you (the officer) go home tonight.

I worked 10 years behind the wire, and my number one job was to ensure the safety of the public, staff and inmates, IN THAT ORDER. My number one GOAL was to go home at night with the same number of holes in my skin I showed up to work in, but that WASN'T my job. If all I wanted was to be safe all the time at work, I'd work as a dispatcher in a secure building surrounded by armed staff. If an officer goes to work on the street thinking that the only thing worthwhile is to go home...they might as well stay there, that person can't follow their sworn oath, "I solemnly swear to serve and protect the citizens of the Great State of Arizona..."


Well, ya know what, maybe we should be nervous about this! http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/regio...to-do-if-you-think-a-fake-officer-targets-you
Even Sheriff Joe was surprised about how accurate the faux uniform looked.

 

[ZombieHorde]

Interesting. Hope I'm never in this situation.

 

[Kleanbore]

Let's stick to the topic, folks.

 

[Salmoneye]

Salmoneye, please refer to the Arizona law link I posted. As for this;

Quote:
Number one rule for a police officer is you (the officer) go home tonight.

I understand that...

I am not anti-LEO, but I do not believe them to be above the law either...

This LEO needn't have been anywhere near that vehicle if they had called in the plate and found it to be right where it belongs...

I am only asking that someone attempt to explain to me why this LEO was on private property putting themselves and others in a situation that needn't have occurred...

I'll settle for an articulable reason...So far no one has even attempted to come up with one other than it's "suspicious" that a vehicle belonging to the resident of that address was in his yard...That simply makes no sense to me...

I also take serious issue with a LEO (or anyone else) coming on my property for no articulable reason, and then ordering me around (as in disarming me)...

 

[BSA1]

I find it disappointing how quickly these threads turn into bash the police that often reflect more poorly on the posters than the police.

 

[rooter]

The first issue for me was that she was tresspassing my property without good cause or reason.

Trespassing? She was investigating a suspicious circumstance, or does every person in Arizona park under a tree and leave their car door open on a regular basis. If you somehow think you own a patch of land that cannot be entered by a LEO, you are VERY mistaken. Truthfully, you don't own any land, you rent it from the government. See how long you "own" it when your taxes (rent) becomes delinquent.

Second, she had me remove my firearm while having no good cause to be on my property. After all, this wasn't a traffic stop or any other type of contact that afforded her any cause to be demanding such actions on my behalf.

I would have, too, if you walked up on me packing. She did nothing wrong.

I'm curious if this issue is worth taking to her supervisor because I feel she handled it poorly.

IMO you are blowing this whole thing out of proportion.

It's also the second time I've had my 2nd walked on by a sherriff.

Would you mind elaborating on how a deputy having you remove your sidearm is an infringement on the 2A? I don't see it.


While not directed toward anyone in particular. I am always amazed at the twisted logic cop haters apply to a thread such as this. The www really reminds me how many people in this world literally "have no clue."

 

[ec4321]

I find it disappointing how quickly these threads turn into bash the police that often reflect more poorly on the posters than the police.

Being critical of a given officers actions is not police bashing.

Truthfully, you don't own any land, you rent it from the government.

That's an interesting position. I can see how an authoritarian would take such a view point. Not my cup of tea at all. Not to mention is absolutely false and contradictory to property laws in this country.