UPDATE:Seized By Manchester PD For Carry - 911 & Dispatch Transcript
- Thread starter d-mac
- Start date
- Status
d-mac
Member
liliy
Nice blanket statement.
This is all about the way the police handled this case not about open carry.
What he did was legal, what the PD did was not.
Nice blanket statement.
This is all about the way the police handled this case not about open carry.
What he did was legal, what the PD did was not.
Ok I am going to have to comment here. This Anti-Cop @#$ just went to far. I am an officer and if you look at my few prior posts I do not stand blind behind everything cops do we make errors and are human.
Lets look this this situation for a police perspective.
1. 911 call of man with a gun open in a book store. I am from an open and concealed carry state and this would be a very serious call as I cannot possibley know this man intentions, (and open carry of a gun, while legal is unheard of and IMO not that bright of an idea).
2. Police arrive and see said man. They did not draw guns, yell, or threaten him. They touched him yes, but I belive the level they touched him at, by his own discription, was minimal and for actual officer safety.
3. Took and secured his weapon, Guess what last time I was stopped I showed badge and ID and my weapon was taken and secured for the duration, this simpliy comes down to "I want to go home at night". When I make contact with you for any reason I DO NOT KNOW YOU, I understand when someone says "but I should not be treated that way I'm a law abiding citizen", that they feel wronged. But I do not have a crystal ball and magic powers that tell me good guy or bad guy. I am just trying to live.
4. Checked his gun and him for stolen, warrants respectivley. After seeing CCL and observing that he was not a threat this seems pointless but I don't know that Dept. policy.
The man was then released no worse off.
This is my opinion only (I don't want him sueing me)
He wanted this confrontation he wanted to sue get a nice settlement and make the police look bad. Something soured him to police and this was revenge nothing more.
I saw several comments in packing.org that stated the police did not need to check this since the caller refused her name. Let me say that we must check every call that has an address (law not policy) if we get the call even if the caller calls back on a serious call and tells us its ok to cancel we must confirm in person.
We are just trying to do a job and this time the officers did it right.
Lets look this this situation for a police perspective.
1. 911 call of man with a gun open in a book store. I am from an open and concealed carry state and this would be a very serious call as I cannot possibley know this man intentions, (and open carry of a gun, while legal is unheard of and IMO not that bright of an idea).
2. Police arrive and see said man. They did not draw guns, yell, or threaten him. They touched him yes, but I belive the level they touched him at, by his own discription, was minimal and for actual officer safety.
3. Took and secured his weapon, Guess what last time I was stopped I showed badge and ID and my weapon was taken and secured for the duration, this simpliy comes down to "I want to go home at night". When I make contact with you for any reason I DO NOT KNOW YOU, I understand when someone says "but I should not be treated that way I'm a law abiding citizen", that they feel wronged. But I do not have a crystal ball and magic powers that tell me good guy or bad guy. I am just trying to live.
4. Checked his gun and him for stolen, warrants respectivley. After seeing CCL and observing that he was not a threat this seems pointless but I don't know that Dept. policy.
The man was then released no worse off.
This is my opinion only (I don't want him sueing me)
He wanted this confrontation he wanted to sue get a nice settlement and make the police look bad. Something soured him to police and this was revenge nothing more.
I saw several comments in packing.org that stated the police did not need to check this since the caller refused her name. Let me say that we must check every call that has an address (law not policy) if we get the call even if the caller calls back on a serious call and tells us its ok to cancel we must confirm in person.
We are just trying to do a job and this time the officers did it right.
After reading the thing again, Im gonna have to agree...they did NOTHING wrong..they received a call, they responded, the defused any threat, and they released...wheres the harm?
I can guarantee you that if the man had had different intentions, and had shot the place up, and the police had not responded, since she didnt leave her name
rolleyes: ), the police would have been crucified for not doing the very thing that was done here. You cant have it both ways, folks.
I can guarantee you that if the man had had different intentions, and had shot the place up, and the police had not responded, since she didnt leave her name
rolleyes: ), the police would have been crucified for not doing the very thing that was done here. You cant have it both ways, folks.Sindawe
Member
Sheild529:
Can you elaborate on the basis for your opinion? *I* read nothing in mvpel's accounting of this encounter that supports your opion, but I'm willing to be enlightened.
liliysdad and Sheild529:
Did you guys read the original posting on this by mvpel?
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74034
Can you elaborate on the basis for your opinion? *I* read nothing in mvpel's accounting of this encounter that supports your opion, but I'm willing to be enlightened.
liliysdad and Sheild529:
Did you guys read the original posting on this by mvpel?
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74034
Zak Smith
Member
So were they investigating a crime, or, you know, investigating and investigation?
The hysterical woman called in evidence of something completely legal happening.
-z
The hysterical woman called in evidence of something completely legal happening.
-z
Yes I have read it. I stand behind my Opinion as that is all it is, not a fact. some points I will cite.
Quote from: mvpel "I was dressed neatly in slacks and a purple oxford shirt, and was clean-shaven".
So people in this country should be treated diffrentley based on apperance? Are killers always dirty and dishelved?
Quote from: mvpel "Since I had neglected to tuck my shirt over it, my holstered Glock 30 sidearm was thus visible in the small of my back in a Workman IWB holster".
He neglected? it seems by this statement he normaly keeps it concealed, probley for a good reason/ right or wrong it scares people.
My impression from this entire story is that this personis arrogent and a braggert IMO this was showing off.
Quote from: mvpel "I informed them that I am trained, having completed the Lethal Force Institute’s Judicious Use of Deadly Force course, as well as handgun licensing requirements in California and for a Utah Concealed Carry license.
This is Bragging in the highest order about what a bad@$$ he is, anytime someone starts telling me about thier "lethel training" I start getting a real bad impression, Guess what I have training to and the most important thing to me is to Avoid Lethel force.
If you are trained and intelligent you do not need to brag nor will you.
The entire tone of this letter is VICTIM, he was innocentley just being a sweet little lamb when the jackbooted storm troopers furiously assaulted him and burned the constitution in the parking lot.
I will provide more Quotes to make my point that his attitude was most likey unpleasent and aggervated the situation.
mvpel quotes: " Given the crowd of talkative uniformed officers and detectives around me, and having been somewhat rattled by the ambush, I had difficulty finishing a sentence"
But could tell them how lethel he was.
"After about 5-10 minutes of my polite endurance of various disrespectful and arrogant statements and questions by the officers and detectives"
Polite endurance?
"I realize that some of the patrons of Barnes & Noble thought of me as a wolf, rather than a sheep-dog, and reacted accordingly by calling in the authorities. Needless to say, I will be careful to carry my firearm more discreetly in the future to avoid spooking the sheep.
However, I expect better discernment from fellow sheep-dogs.
I have not yet decided whether or not to file a lawsuit on the basis of the aforementioned violation of my rights and New Hampshire law. If I do, I will copy you on the service as a courtesy.
Again Brag, Brag, Brag. He is the mighty sheep-dog. He expects better.
LAWSUIT mentioned in first comunication. Copy you as a courtesy.
I don't care who you are or what you've done when you approch anyone with this type of attitude and arrogence, be it a cop or hotel bellboy, the responce you get is not likey to be favorable. The kind of arrogence shown is what leads me to belive he was showing off his really cool glock and when the police arrived, he actd like a @$# and then sat down and figured he could make a quick buck.
Still those are just my thoughts
I could be wrong.
Quote from: mvpel "I was dressed neatly in slacks and a purple oxford shirt, and was clean-shaven".
So people in this country should be treated diffrentley based on apperance? Are killers always dirty and dishelved?
Quote from: mvpel "Since I had neglected to tuck my shirt over it, my holstered Glock 30 sidearm was thus visible in the small of my back in a Workman IWB holster".
He neglected? it seems by this statement he normaly keeps it concealed, probley for a good reason/ right or wrong it scares people.
My impression from this entire story is that this personis arrogent and a braggert IMO this was showing off.
Quote from: mvpel "I informed them that I am trained, having completed the Lethal Force Institute’s Judicious Use of Deadly Force course, as well as handgun licensing requirements in California and for a Utah Concealed Carry license.
This is Bragging in the highest order about what a bad@$$ he is, anytime someone starts telling me about thier "lethel training" I start getting a real bad impression, Guess what I have training to and the most important thing to me is to Avoid Lethel force.
If you are trained and intelligent you do not need to brag nor will you.
The entire tone of this letter is VICTIM, he was innocentley just being a sweet little lamb when the jackbooted storm troopers furiously assaulted him and burned the constitution in the parking lot.
I will provide more Quotes to make my point that his attitude was most likey unpleasent and aggervated the situation.
mvpel quotes: " Given the crowd of talkative uniformed officers and detectives around me, and having been somewhat rattled by the ambush, I had difficulty finishing a sentence"
But could tell them how lethel he was.
"After about 5-10 minutes of my polite endurance of various disrespectful and arrogant statements and questions by the officers and detectives"
Polite endurance?
"I realize that some of the patrons of Barnes & Noble thought of me as a wolf, rather than a sheep-dog, and reacted accordingly by calling in the authorities. Needless to say, I will be careful to carry my firearm more discreetly in the future to avoid spooking the sheep.
However, I expect better discernment from fellow sheep-dogs.
I have not yet decided whether or not to file a lawsuit on the basis of the aforementioned violation of my rights and New Hampshire law. If I do, I will copy you on the service as a courtesy.
Again Brag, Brag, Brag. He is the mighty sheep-dog. He expects better.
LAWSUIT mentioned in first comunication. Copy you as a courtesy.
I don't care who you are or what you've done when you approch anyone with this type of attitude and arrogence, be it a cop or hotel bellboy, the responce you get is not likey to be favorable. The kind of arrogence shown is what leads me to belive he was showing off his really cool glock and when the police arrived, he actd like a @$# and then sat down and figured he could make a quick buck.
Still those are just my thoughts
I could be wrong.
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
Shield, I must be confused. Did MVPel sneak up and perform a "gun grab" on the police officers? I thought it was the other way around.
Don't see how that could mean that he wanted a confrontation or a lawsuit. In any case, we'll never have objective proof of your assertion, because the police in this case didn't give him a chance to explain what he was doing or to what purpose before they laid hands on him and disarmed him in what I'd have to call dangerous fashion.
1. Responding to a call--nothing wrong there. Good start.
2. No, they did not defuse a threat. There WAS NO THREAT, and if there had been any threat-- even the possibility to MVPel might have resorted to violence--grabbing him and his gun was an extremely stupid way to "defuse" anything. The word "defuse" doesn't even apply to that approach.
3. They released him. . . . when they never should have detained him. They could clearly see that he wasn't breaking the law, and they could clearly see that his behavior was not erratic or threatening. This is akin to saying a racist officer hasn't really hassled a black motorist since he released him--after he detained him for no legal reason. Doesn't wash.
4. The harm is in attacking, disarming by force, and detaining a person who can be seen to be acting peacefully and in accordance with the law, simply because a cop agreed with a busybody that this particular peaceful and lawful activity is distasteful. I can't believe a police officer really sees no harm in that. Your credibility with me has not been enhanced.
Don't see how that could mean that he wanted a confrontation or a lawsuit. In any case, we'll never have objective proof of your assertion, because the police in this case didn't give him a chance to explain what he was doing or to what purpose before they laid hands on him and disarmed him in what I'd have to call dangerous fashion.
In the order you posted your questions:
1. Responding to a call--nothing wrong there. Good start.
2. No, they did not defuse a threat. There WAS NO THREAT, and if there had been any threat-- even the possibility to MVPel might have resorted to violence--grabbing him and his gun was an extremely stupid way to "defuse" anything. The word "defuse" doesn't even apply to that approach.
3. They released him. . . . when they never should have detained him. They could clearly see that he wasn't breaking the law, and they could clearly see that his behavior was not erratic or threatening. This is akin to saying a racist officer hasn't really hassled a black motorist since he released him--after he detained him for no legal reason. Doesn't wash.
4. The harm is in attacking, disarming by force, and detaining a person who can be seen to be acting peacefully and in accordance with the law, simply because a cop agreed with a busybody that this particular peaceful and lawful activity is distasteful. I can't believe a police officer really sees no harm in that. Your credibility with me has not been enhanced.
Zak Smith
Member
So are you going to analyze the events that occured and their justification or lack thereof, or call mvpeel names?
-z
-z
gunsmith
member
Shield529
Welcome to THR.
Sometimes there is anti cop BS here.
That has nothing to do with the mvpel case though.
Open carry is probably unheard of in your jurisdiction thats all.
I carried open in AZ all over the place lots of cops and citizens saw me,no one freaked out.
Lots of folks are carrying open now in VA too, if it's legal then it's legal.
I would conceal most of the time but I prefer open carry when it's real hot and muggy.
Again Shield529
Welcome to THR
Welcome to THR.
Sometimes there is anti cop BS here.
That has nothing to do with the mvpel case though.
Open carry is probably unheard of in your jurisdiction thats all.
I carried open in AZ all over the place lots of cops and citizens saw me,no one freaked out.
Lots of folks are carrying open now in VA too, if it's legal then it's legal.
I would conceal most of the time but I prefer open carry when it's real hot and muggy.
Again Shield529
Welcome to THR
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
You've got to be kidding. Shield, do you even know what the Lethal Force Institute is? Talking about graduating LFI is bragging about your "lethal training?" LFI training is all about the prudent, judicious use of force only when it is necessary AND in accordance with law. You might have heard of the guy who runs it--Massad Ayoob. He's the police officer who writes all those gun rag articles on the topic of NOT being Rambo and understanding the use of lethal force in terms of the damage everyone involved sustains afterward. I mean absolutely no offense by this, but it sounds like you're referring to police department training, maybe in addition to academy training. If you've had that, and MVPel has had LFI, he's probably ahead of you in his knowledge of lethal force and all the wonderful reasons not to resort to it. Maybe not, or maybe you've had more advanced training than you let on above, but the way you characterize LFI and concealed carry courses as encouraging reckless application of lethal force doesn't give that impression. Frankly, it makes it appear that you're commenting on matters in which your understanding is the exact opposite of reality.
Yes, polite endurance. It can be loosely translated as "smiling and giving polite replies while trying not to laugh at rude or unintentionally funny people." I am a past master myself, having been forced to learn the art at the hands of everyone from police officers to customers to salesmen. No matter what our teachers told us when we were kids, there ARE stupid questions, and some people can't help but ask them. If those people have the power to make your life miserable in some way, you generally act polite and endure it. Hence "polite endurance."
Let me make sure I understand this--you think that because his letter about being wrongfully detained, wrongfully disarmed, and literally having his property taken by force without cause does not show enough respect to the department which he alleges committed those acts, his accusation is false, because he must have been doing SOMETHING wrong to merit such treatment?
I know attitude matters, but this unswerving insistence that anyone who has a bad experience with a police officer must have had a bad attitude assumes that police officers can't be the ones with the bad attitude in whatever given situation. That's preposterous. Even if there weren't any bad police officers, the good ones would still be people. Do you ever watch COPS on television? No, those guys aren't representative of the police (and not everyone on COPS acts like an idiot or a tyrant) but they're certainly out there. Why is it so hard to believe that some of them work in Manchester?
I can tell you right now that where I live each police department has its own character. Virden PD's character is not what you'd call positive--they have some very good officers, but also a healthy mix of overaggressive types and officers who really believe they should have the right to make the law. I'm not passing on rumors here; my own father was told by two officers that pointing rifles at a suspect along with about 8 other officers the night before had been, and I quote, " the coolest thing they'd ever done." You don't suppose those guys might be a little too aggressive in some situations, do you?
My father also had the experience (he works for the city alongside the police department, but not for it) of asking for enough gun locks from the Project GunSafe stores for each of his guns. Dad has a lot of guns. He keeps them in a separate outbuilding with steel bars on the windows and doors, motion sensor alarms, deadbolts, etc. to keep people out, and he has no children at home, but Illinois law on gun locks still made him nervous without them.
The chief of police treated him like a criminal in that conversation based solely on the number of guns he owns (no one, and I mean NO ONE could possibly be offended by dad. He knows practically everyone in this small town and I've never heard one person speak ill of him, until this Chief arrived.)
Of course, it was probably his "attitude" and the "arrogant" way he treated the Chief when he asked someone else for some of the gun locks which had been advertised as free giveaways for two weeks (the officer dad was actually addressing when he asked for the locks gave him a wink and dropped off the locks later in the day without bothering the Chief with such details.)
Actually, for all I know, maybe I'm being arrogant, bragging about my dad's cool building and his bunch of gun locks and all. . . .
To Don Guinn
Your qoute "4. The harm is in attacking, disarming by force, and detaining a person who can be seen to be acting peacefully and in accordance with the law, simply because a cop agreed with a busybody that this particular peaceful and lawful activity is distasteful. I can't believe a police officer really sees no harm in that. Your credibility with me has not been enhanced.
This is a very loose interpretation of "Attack" took control of his gun arm and gun. I don't think that was to defuse anything as you mentioned it was to prevent a person from gaining access to that weapon.
I doubt the cop agreed with the so called busybody. Dispite all your hated towards police and myself, most of us agree with you on firearm laws and other points, we have to respond to calls no matter how and act the same way towards everyone. Its not a matter of agreeing.
So no I don't see harm in it, I was not calling the subect of the conversation names I was just giving my thoughts on the matter.
I will ask you the question though. If the police had ignored the call and he had started shooting would you be on here calling for our heads for failing to respond to a 911 call.
PS. I think its sad that my credibility is damaged because I speak my open honest opinion. I started talking on this site because I was impressed with the volume and intelligence level here compared to other places. I knew cop bashing took place here but I hoped I could help with that by being open and willing to answer any questions and discuss any topic about police that concerned others.
This I will continue to do. I will treat everyone with respect no matter how far our opinions differ, please do the same to me.
Your qoute "4. The harm is in attacking, disarming by force, and detaining a person who can be seen to be acting peacefully and in accordance with the law, simply because a cop agreed with a busybody that this particular peaceful and lawful activity is distasteful. I can't believe a police officer really sees no harm in that. Your credibility with me has not been enhanced.
This is a very loose interpretation of "Attack" took control of his gun arm and gun. I don't think that was to defuse anything as you mentioned it was to prevent a person from gaining access to that weapon.
I doubt the cop agreed with the so called busybody. Dispite all your hated towards police and myself, most of us agree with you on firearm laws and other points, we have to respond to calls no matter how and act the same way towards everyone. Its not a matter of agreeing.
So no I don't see harm in it, I was not calling the subect of the conversation names I was just giving my thoughts on the matter.
I will ask you the question though. If the police had ignored the call and he had started shooting would you be on here calling for our heads for failing to respond to a 911 call.
PS. I think its sad that my credibility is damaged because I speak my open honest opinion. I started talking on this site because I was impressed with the volume and intelligence level here compared to other places. I knew cop bashing took place here but I hoped I could help with that by being open and willing to answer any questions and discuss any topic about police that concerned others.
This I will continue to do. I will treat everyone with respect no matter how far our opinions differ, please do the same to me.
"I know attitude matters, but this unswerving insistence that anyone who has a bad experience with a police officer must have had a bad attitude assumes that police officers can't be the ones with the bad attitude in whatever given situation. That's preposterous. Even if there weren't any bad police officers, the good ones would still be people."
Please read my other posts on other topics, it is not unswerving insistance.
Please read my other posts on other topics, it is not unswerving insistance.
gunsmith
member
Why isn't MVPEL posting here?
I just want updates,not pages and pages of the open against concealed debates.
Is there any place other then packing and freep which is filled with the same old debates?? TFL doesn't seem to be working.
I just want updates,not pages and pages of the open against concealed debates.
Is there any place other then packing and freep which is filled with the same old debates?? TFL doesn't seem to be working.
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
Sir, the very fact that you've decided that I must feel "hatred" toward police will tell most members of THR that you simply don't understand what's going on here and have not bothered to try to find out. Try and find another member of this website--police officers included--who will agree with that whopper. You might start by asking Lawdog, Coronach, Johnny Guest, Matt G, George Hill, Stephen Camp, or Erick, all of whom are or have been cops and corrections officers. You might then ask some of the officers on this board who have had serious and vehement disagreements with me on police issues, like tcsd1236 or Brownie0486. Those guys rarely agree with me (on anything at all) but I bet they won't say they think I hate them or police officers in general.
This is the sort of thing that fuels criticism from people like me. People who do NOT hate the police, but can't let the hypocrisy pass when a police officer tells me that it is hateful to point out when a police officer somewhere does something wrong. I understand that police officers do a sometimes thankless job, and they see a lot of unfair criticism, but surely the police are not above criticism.
To be clear: I don't hate police officers, and I don't hate you. That doesn't mean the officers in this case get a pass for the wrong they did, and it doesn't mean I have to agree with you even when you demonstrate that you don't understand the topic.
I notice you've become quiet about your idea that mentioning LFI and CCW training means arrogant bragging about l33t lethal ski11z.
You have still never, not once, articulated a single good reason why the officers felt the need to take physical control of either his arm or his weapon. Again, they did not even allege that he had behaved as a threat, and the weapon was a legal one worn in legal fashion.
I appreciate your support on gun laws, but I'd have to say we disagree on open carry based on your statements above. That's all this is, a disagreement. You may see this as a confrontation between the arrogant braggarts and lethal wannabes on the one side and reasonable people on the other, but all I ever said is that I disagree with your opinion and I don't think it's based on a clear understanding of the facts. I stand by that.
I could understand it if you pointed out that we don't have both sides of the story. That would be true and appropriate, and I've kept it in mind. You chose instead to argue that, given MVPel's version of events and accepting it as true, the officers still did the right thing.
We don't have to use the word "attacked." They took him by surprise, laid hands on him, disarmed him by force and detained him. Again, you have NOT articulated any reason for this except that it would prevent access to his legally carried weapon, which he had demonstrated no intention of touching in any case. Like it or not, there are certain things police officers don't get to do. You don't get to walk up to citizens who are minding their own business with their perfectly legal property and grab them. That is simply not acceptable.
This is the sort of thing that fuels criticism from people like me. People who do NOT hate the police, but can't let the hypocrisy pass when a police officer tells me that it is hateful to point out when a police officer somewhere does something wrong. I understand that police officers do a sometimes thankless job, and they see a lot of unfair criticism, but surely the police are not above criticism.
To be clear: I don't hate police officers, and I don't hate you. That doesn't mean the officers in this case get a pass for the wrong they did, and it doesn't mean I have to agree with you even when you demonstrate that you don't understand the topic.
I notice you've become quiet about your idea that mentioning LFI and CCW training means arrogant bragging about l33t lethal ski11z.
You have still never, not once, articulated a single good reason why the officers felt the need to take physical control of either his arm or his weapon. Again, they did not even allege that he had behaved as a threat, and the weapon was a legal one worn in legal fashion.
I appreciate your support on gun laws, but I'd have to say we disagree on open carry based on your statements above. That's all this is, a disagreement. You may see this as a confrontation between the arrogant braggarts and lethal wannabes on the one side and reasonable people on the other, but all I ever said is that I disagree with your opinion and I don't think it's based on a clear understanding of the facts. I stand by that.
I could understand it if you pointed out that we don't have both sides of the story. That would be true and appropriate, and I've kept it in mind. You chose instead to argue that, given MVPel's version of events and accepting it as true, the officers still did the right thing.
We don't have to use the word "attacked." They took him by surprise, laid hands on him, disarmed him by force and detained him. Again, you have NOT articulated any reason for this except that it would prevent access to his legally carried weapon, which he had demonstrated no intention of touching in any case. Like it or not, there are certain things police officers don't get to do. You don't get to walk up to citizens who are minding their own business with their perfectly legal property and grab them. That is simply not acceptable.
Muzzleflash
member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2004
- Messages
- 318
If I didn't know who Ayoob was, or what LFI was, I'd react to someone spouting a mouthful of words with Lethal repeated a few times with some rather obvious disdain.
0007
Member
tcsd -
The reason it's usually a losing battle here and on other boards is because far too many of your fraternal brethern here and there seem to feel or at least give the impression that ANYTHING a police officer does is correct and nobody has the right to question them. And when these actions are sometimes impossible to justify some of you go into snit mode repeating the mantra "We're right and you people are wrong and you people are all too stupid to understand why."
It's a self-fueling vicious circle. Sometimes you're wrong and sometimes the rest of us are wrong. The difference that I see is that occationally "us'en" will sometimes admit to error.
The reason it's usually a losing battle here and on other boards is because far too many of your fraternal brethern here and there seem to feel or at least give the impression that ANYTHING a police officer does is correct and nobody has the right to question them. And when these actions are sometimes impossible to justify some of you go into snit mode repeating the mantra "We're right and you people are wrong and you people are all too stupid to understand why."
It's a self-fueling vicious circle. Sometimes you're wrong and sometimes the rest of us are wrong. The difference that I see is that occationally "us'en" will sometimes admit to error.
I got news for ya Shields--one LFI class is probably more actual hands-on firearms training than most cops will ever have. The guy is not a braggart. You got some nerve as a new guy around here flaming people. You're a cop, we get it. Cops can't just go around harrassing folks so they can 'just get home at night.' Your job comes with risks. You took it, not me. IMO, the responding officers should have just observed the guy for a while before manhandling him. And, for the record to all, this is EXACTLY why people SHOULD open carry. To start conditioning the sheep to not freak out at the meer sight of a gun.
Greg
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Open Carry
Have to agree with the point that open carry in a public place isn't the
smart thing to do. Some people are frightened of guns...period. Why
that is doesn't matter. They just are. When people get frightened, some
tend to call the police. That's also a fact.
When the police arrive, they are walking in pretty much blind. How
many cops reading this have had dispatches that haven't given all the facts...even though the dispatcher was aware of something that the responding officer(s) should know about? It happens.
They cops don't know if the man in possession of the weapon is
Joe Good 'ol Boy who is on their side, or some gang-banger lookin'
to make his mark by cappin' a cop. They don't want to get shot either...
That's NOT part of their job description. Disarming somebody that
they interview is called "Threat Management" and that practice
can stop at that point, or it can go all the way to having one of
them mace the person and put him in cuffs...It's pretty much up to
the one being managed. Better for him to get bent outta shape over
a violation of his legal rights than to have a firefight in a bookstore or
crowded restaurant. The former is much easier to explain and justify.
Their job is to maintain order by taking control of whatever situation
that they walk up to. If they can do that without resorting to a violent
response, they will do just that.
Note also that although open carry is legal in many jurisdictions, there is
also very often a law prohibiting the practice of "Going Armed to the Terror of the Public". If one concerned citizen wants to press charges, you're busted.
Open carry is acceptable in certain places, but a family bookstore just ain't one of'em. I'm a die-hard advocate of the right to keep and bear arms...
vehemently so. I have also been more than a little concerned when I've seen somebody carrying openly in areas where it's out of place, and I
keep a close eye on'em. I also feel that people who do it are either
looking for attention or have an axe to grind, and are attempting to
provoke a confrontation with the authorities in order to whet the stone.
Either way...they are NOT helping our cause.
Just my nickel's worth.
Have to agree with the point that open carry in a public place isn't the
smart thing to do. Some people are frightened of guns...period. Why
that is doesn't matter. They just are. When people get frightened, some
tend to call the police. That's also a fact.
When the police arrive, they are walking in pretty much blind. How
many cops reading this have had dispatches that haven't given all the facts...even though the dispatcher was aware of something that the responding officer(s) should know about? It happens.
They cops don't know if the man in possession of the weapon is
Joe Good 'ol Boy who is on their side, or some gang-banger lookin'
to make his mark by cappin' a cop. They don't want to get shot either...
That's NOT part of their job description. Disarming somebody that
they interview is called "Threat Management" and that practice
can stop at that point, or it can go all the way to having one of
them mace the person and put him in cuffs...It's pretty much up to
the one being managed. Better for him to get bent outta shape over
a violation of his legal rights than to have a firefight in a bookstore or
crowded restaurant. The former is much easier to explain and justify.
Their job is to maintain order by taking control of whatever situation
that they walk up to. If they can do that without resorting to a violent
response, they will do just that.
Note also that although open carry is legal in many jurisdictions, there is
also very often a law prohibiting the practice of "Going Armed to the Terror of the Public". If one concerned citizen wants to press charges, you're busted.
Open carry is acceptable in certain places, but a family bookstore just ain't one of'em. I'm a die-hard advocate of the right to keep and bear arms...
vehemently so. I have also been more than a little concerned when I've seen somebody carrying openly in areas where it's out of place, and I
keep a close eye on'em. I also feel that people who do it are either
looking for attention or have an axe to grind, and are attempting to
provoke a confrontation with the authorities in order to whet the stone.
Either way...they are NOT helping our cause.
Just my nickel's worth.
I have taken the Judicious Use LFI course; it has ZERO hands-on firearms time. It is totally classroom, legalese DPF advice from Mas. And I was in the classroom with a lot of other local officers who took it with me.
I can't speak from memory for the state requirements that were mentioned, although I have seen the Utah requirements on one or two boards when I was considering getting that non-res permit a few years ago to go along with my collection of non res permits.
Another thing: for every LFI, Gunsite, Yavapei, etc graduate, there are a hundred ignorant gun owners who have ZERO training on the issue and think they KNOW what the laws regarding the use of deadly physical force are. I have seen enough proof of that on the various gun boards I post on. In contrast, EVERY officer has mandatory initial and in-service training on what constitutes the legal use of deadly physical force.
You mention hands-on gun time. OK, So law enforcement happens to share a tool of the trade with what happens to be your HOBBY. Its ONE aspect of our job, and one that rarely gets utilized by the average officer. Huge advances have been made in the area of law enforcement firearms training in the past decades, compared to what used to be taught or, more often, not taught. The reality is that most agencies cannot afford to turn every officer into a Rob Letham. There has to be a middle ground between skills building and financial responsibility for the agencies and officers involved.Car lovers expect every oficer to be a NASCAR level driver; gun people expect every officer to be a competitive level shooter. It isn't going to happen.
We DON'T just "go around harassing people". I don't know how many officers you have dealt with, and under what circumstances. Generally someone thats seeing the non-officer Friendly side of law enforcement has brought that on themselves, although you NEVER see them admit it..its always "someone elses fault" in their minds.
Our job has risks associated with it certainly..that doesn't mean that we should not and cannot take steps to reduce that risk.
The reality is that defensive firearms ownership is a rather compartmentalized area of firearms ownership; you will never have so many citizens openly carrying that it is not viewed with some suspicion by the general , non- gun owning population, in spite of you as a gun hobbyist might WANT to see it viewed by the general public.
There is a time and place to handle a complaint a person might have with an officer, and thats not by the roadside or where ever the contact is/has taken place..its with the agencies administration, later, or even through the legal process if neccesary. In the meantime, the right thing to do IS to obey the officers instructions, in spite of what you think is proper.
As far as officers thinking people are idiots, well, we deal with idiots every day on our job. We have had more than enough proof that there ARE a lot of idiots in the general population. And quite often, its obvious from the sort of criticism that gets leveled at officers that the critic is speaking from ignorance. But when we...guys like Shield, myself or others, try to explain the LE perspective, we get howled down by the ignorant masses who have an opinion on what they THINK the right answer is.
I believe he was banned from here for not following the posting rules when commenting on this incident. Or was that elsewhere, like AR15. Can't keep it straight; he had the same thread spread over so many boards right after it happened.....
Last edited:
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
2004:
Popular perceptions can change, especially if they are shown to be based on irrational prejudice. But usually only if some are willing to make others uncomfortable with their irrational prejudice. Most blacks did not refuse to give up their seat on a bus. Most blacks did not drink from the "whites only" drinking fountain or swim in the "whites only" public pools. But all of us -- black, white, latino -- benefitted from those who did.
Shield -- please stick around. It takes a while for some of what's being said to not sound so foreign.
1954: Eating with black folks is acceptable in certain places, but a family restaurant just ain't one of 'em.
Popular perceptions can change, especially if they are shown to be based on irrational prejudice. But usually only if some are willing to make others uncomfortable with their irrational prejudice. Most blacks did not refuse to give up their seat on a bus. Most blacks did not drink from the "whites only" drinking fountain or swim in the "whites only" public pools. But all of us -- black, white, latino -- benefitted from those who did.
Shield -- please stick around. It takes a while for some of what's being said to not sound so foreign.
- Status
