Approached by officer while open carry (NE Ft Wayne)

[Hotdoger]

It does sound that way. Just like a non-LEO approaching an OC'er and saying the same things. So what?

The question is about the training to coerce in favor of not OCing, not weather he was doing it on not.

Do you think all LEOs should be trained to coerce OCers to not OC?

 

[jsharmon7]

The question is about the training to coerce in favor of not OCing, not weather he was doing it on not.

Do you think all LEOs should be trained to coerce OCers to not OC?

Well, you're right, we'll have to wait for Sarge to answer the question about what was specifically said during training. My thinking is that it doesn't really matter whether an officer is taught that or not. It's not a lawful order, and this encounter seems to have been mutual conversation rather than official "questioning." As soon as the OP decided he was done with the conversation, he walked away and it was over. If the officer shared his opinion (whether his or his departments) then that's all it was, an opinion.

 

[Hotdoger]

Well, you're right, we'll have to wait for Sarge to answer the question about what was specifically said during training. My thinking is that it doesn't really matter whether an officer is taught that or not. It's not a lawful order, and this encounter seems to have been mutual conversation rather than official "questioning." As soon as the OP decided he was done with the conversation, he walked away and it was over. If the officer shared his opinion (whether his or his departments) then that's all it was, an opinion.

SOP for any employee of a company is to keep their personal views to themselves. Especially if you are on the clock .

 

[jsharmon7]

SOP for any employee of a company is to keep their personal views to themselves. Especially if you are on the clock .

So I'm to understand that you've never shared an opinion before? Especially while at work? I guess if the OP was so offended at the employee he encountered sharing his views on this situation then he could make a complaint. Have you ever had the employee of a business you're in contact with share a personal opinion with you? Did you report them right away? It's obvious that we disagree on this, I'm just asking out of curiosity.

 

[Hotdoger]

So I'm to understand that you've never shared an opinion before? Especially while at work? I guess if the OP was so offended at the employee he encountered sharing his views on this situation then he could make a complaint. Have you ever had the employee of a business you're in contact with share a personal opinion with you? Did you report them right away? It's obvious that we disagree on this, I'm just asking out of curiosity.

As an employee I try to follow the rules my employer has set forth.

Yes I have had personal opinions expressed to me and I had to weigh why they were being expressed in addition to the opinion.

And yes I have reported employees for their words and actions.
and yes I have fired employess for speech and action .

I guess we disagree with what an employee should be doing on the clock?

I think the officer was wasting his and the OPs time and should have been out looking for real bad guys instead of acting on the STUPID 911 call that never should have happened. The 911 caller along with FW dispatch needed the education, not the OP.

 

[jsharmon7]

As an employee I try to follow the rules my employer has set forth.

Yes I have had personal opinions expressed to me and I had to weigh why they were being expressed in addition to the opinion.

And yes I have reported employees for their words and actions.
and yes I have fired employess for speech and action .

I guess we disagree with what an employee should be doing on the clock?

I think the officer was wasting his and the OPs time and should have been out looking for real bad guys instead of acting on the STUPID 911 call that never should have happened. The 911 caller along with FW dispatch needed the education, not the OP.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions. Unless you have a copy of the call to the dispatcher to know how the call came in, I don't know how you presume to know who needs to be educated. Who said the OP needed to be educated anyway? He handled it just fine. Also, could you clarify what you mean when you say you have reported and fired employees for speech and action? Were these words and actions simple opinions like the ones the officer conveyed or something more insulting or damaging? The officer advising the OP that he is concerned for his safety due to his misconceptions about OC wouldn't really fit the bill, in my opinion. It's like a waitress at Applebee's telling a customer with an infant that using a pacifier could be dangerous to the child. To me that really isn't insulting, nor is an officer's misguided opinions on OC being potentially dangerous. This is another case where I think the "who" of the situation is more of an issue than the "what."

This was supposed to be a positive thread, if the OP would like me stay out of it, I will.

 

[Benny]

This was supposed to be a positive thread

You couldn't possibly have thought it was going to stay that way, could you?

You'll just never win with some people.

 

[serpicostraight]

I think it's probably safe to say that most problems with open-carry response from police officers is a lack of familiarity with the statutes that govern the carry of handguns in Indiana. When an officer appears unfriendly toward open carry, it's probably because his/her department has failed to expend the effort to train him/her in proper handling of the call, including protection of the citizen's rights under Indiana statutes. Our agency has demonstrated a commitment to the professional response of MWAG calls (as evidenced by the officer's response), by virtue of its dissemination of information to line officers and supervisors so the Philly fiasco is not repeated here. The sweeping and ill-informed generalization about to FWPD's relationship with law abiding gun owners is in error, and referring to its officers as idiots is uncalled for and offensive.

doesnt every leo get taught about ltch laws in indiana? are there actually leos here in indiana that dont know what an ltch is and the laws that apply to it?

 

[Denny347]

doesnt every leo get taught about ltch laws in indiana? are there actually leos here in indiana that dont know what an ltch is and the laws that apply to it?

Ha, are you kidding? ILEA criminal law consists of Constitutional Law...not specific Indiana laws per se. We learn specific laws while on the job.

 

[Pocketman]

... I think the officer was wasting his and the OPs time and should have been out looking for real bad guys instead of acting on the STUPID 911 call that never should have happened. The 911 caller along with FW dispatch needed the education, not the OP.

IF Indiana state law allowed anyone and everyone to carry firearms, you may have a point. However, since the current laws only allow specific individuals to carry, and prohibit certain other individuals, the dispatcher and officer handled this one spot on.

Had the CP (calling party - complainant) approached the OP and asked for an LTCH (gonna need a glossary) then the 911 call may not have occurred. The concerned citizen elected instead to call the police. Dispatcher could have sent several officers who then approached the OP like storm troopers. Assumption is the caller indicated the OP wasn't causing trouble. Consequently an individual officer (backup no doubt enroute) had a business conversation with the OP and determined all was well. Dispatcher and officer served the public. CP was taken seriously. OP wasn't hassled.

Crap people, what else do you expect in these situations?

 

[hooky]

So if someone who isn't an LEO asks to see an LTCH, do you honestly expect the person carrying to show it?

I know I would politely decline the request to view mine.

 

[KG1]

I don't have a problem per say with someone expressing their opinion. Aslong as that someone, especially someone in the position of authority such as a LEO does'nt try to force that opinion on someone else or try to browbeat or intimidate or missrepresent the legality of any given stituation, then I have a problem. In any event that dose'nt seem to be the case in this encounter, so it's all good in my book.

 

[Hotdoger]

I think you're making a lot of assumptions. Unless you have a copy of the call to the dispatcher to know how the call came in, I don't know how you presume to know who needs to be educated. Seems the OP infered it was a MWAG call. You need to take the "assumption" issue up with him.

. Who said the OP needed to be educated anyway?
It is obvious the officer was trying to "educate" him on why he should CC instead of OCing.


He handled it just fine.
Don't think anyone has stated any different.

Also, could you clarify what you mean when you say you have reported and fired employees for speech and action? Were these words and actions simple opinions like the ones the officer conveyed or something more insulting or damaging?

The employess that I have fired have been for many reasons. One thought he could express his opinions through the clothes he wore. No company uniform policy is going to be followed. Another one thought he could make sexualaly expressive remarks to a customer. Nope that didn't work out for him. I have also seen an employeee fired for verbally giving out sales figures to another customer.Many people think they are entitled to speak any words to anyone they want to but in an employment situation is not that way.

The officer advising the OP that he is concerned for his safety due to his misconceptions about OC wouldn't really fit the bill, in my opinion.


It's like a waitress at Applebee's telling a customer with an infant that using a pacifier could be dangerous to the child. To me that really isn't insulting, nor is an officer's misguided opinions on OC being potentially dangerous.
I would have a talk with the Applebee's manager to see if her job description included pacifier warning. Oh I think that was like my first post in the thread>




This is another case where I think the "who" of the situation is more of an issue than the "what."

This was supposed to be a positive thread, if the OP would like me stay out of it, I will.

Was is negative so far?

 

[ggglobert9]

This is a positive post. I have a brother-in-law that is FWPD. I worked side by side for 10 years as a Paramedic with FWPD. I continue to work on a nightly basis in a local Trauma Ctr with FWPD, ACPD and a lot of other "PD's". Any encounter other than a casual "hello" that is positive is GOOD, Most encounters with police officers have a reason to not be positive as a lot of John Q Public are idiots. Most cops that I know would take the walk "through the valley of the shadow of death" for you...let alone with you. No not everything in life is positive but I would say this is! God bless all you cops! Keep up the good work!

 

[Rookie]

This began and ended as a consensual encounter. Being that it was consensual, I have no problem with an officer making small talk and stating his opinions. Had the OP decided he didn't want a consensual encounter (am I being detained) then the officer has the authority to detain him. If the officer is detaining someone, then small talk and opinions have no place in the conversation.

An example to explain my position.
You go into Best Buy, find a sales person and tell him you want a plasma tv. The sales person tells you that he thinks you'll be happier with an LED because it has a sharper picture and better color. He has simply stated his opinion based on personal beliefs. He has not tried to coerce or force you to get an LED, he has merely stated what he believes is the better option. You still have the choice to listen to him or ignore his opinion. If he gives you his opinion and you tell him thanks but no and he tells you that you don't have a choice, then there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Same thing with this situation. The officer gave his opinion which is not unreasonable. He didn't try to force the issue with the OP, he simply stated his opinion and left it at that.

Good encounter. +1 to the officer.

 

[superjoe76]

When I walked in I passed a few people and there were a few customers, one of which called the police soon after leaving or watching me enter.

I can almost hear the d-bag now! Standing by with a smug look on his face and arms crossed in anticipation of a pending arrest, only to see the officer leave.

"Hey...wait...what the...aren't you going to arrest him?"

 

[Hotdoger]

This began and ended as a consensual encounter. Being that it was consensual, I have no problem with an officer making small talk and stating his opinions. Had the OP decided he didn't want a consensual encounter (am I being detained) then the officer has the authority to detain him. If the officer is detaining someone, then small talk and opinions have no place in the conversation.

An example to explain my position.
You go into Best Buy, find a sales person and tell him you want a plasma tv. The sales person tells you that he thinks you'll be happier with an LED because it has a sharper picture and better color. He has simply stated his opinion based on personal beliefs. He has not tried to coerce or force you to get an LED, he has merely stated what he believes is the better option. You still have the choice to listen to him or ignore his opinion. If he gives you his opinion and you tell him thanks but no and he tells you that you don't have a choice, then there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Same thing with this situation. The officer gave his opinion which is not unreasonable. He didn't try to force the issue with the OP, he simply stated his opinion and left it at that.

Good encounter. +1 to the officer.

Apples to oranges.

The Best Buy guy cannot "coerce" you because he is not in a position of authority.
The officer in the OPs case met the defination elements of the word "coerce", the Best Buy guy, the Applebee's waitress and the pizza delivery guy do not .

 

[Rookie]

Whatever. How is the officer going to coerce you? Threaten to arrest you? So what? Are you that afraid to stand up for your rights? Arrest you? For what? Looks like a payday for your inconvenience.

That's OK. Get back in line.

 

[Rookie]

Btw.
Coerce - to persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by use of force or threats.

Feel free to show any statement that remotely meets the definition of coerce.

 

[schafe]

Just curious.... does an officer responding to a MWAG call usually have contact with the caller after an encounter like this? .. I'll bet that conversation explaining "there is nothing illegal going on here" can be more interesting, and possibly more confrontational, than the one with the OC'r, since one would presume that the callers in these cases are not familiar with carry laws. (Just my guess)