How would you like to be treated by law-enforcement?

[Jack Burton]

who is your avatar

I created that dull and senseless face, as it is known to some people, from the wedding picture of my dear, sainted mother using this program:

How to Create a Comic-Book Style Image of Yourself

 

[Bunnykid68]

I created that dull and senseless face, as it is known to some people, from the wedding picture of my dear, sainted mother using this program:

How to Create a Comic-Book Style Image of Yourself

Sir I cannot rep you again, I must spread it around. Thanks for the link

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

I created that dull and senseless face, as it is known to some people, from the wedding picture of my dear, sainted mother using this program:

How to Create a Comic-Book Style Image of Yourself

I was trying to imply that YOU were dull and senseless....... I sincerely regret accidentally disparaging your sainted mother.

 

[Tinner666]

Intersting read while checking into my Utah permit app. http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/FAQ.html#2

An excerpt, "If I get stopped by a police officer, do I, as a permit holder, have to tell the officer that I have a gun in my possession?

Although there is no legal requirement to identify yourself to a law enforcement officer, it is recommended to do so.
If an officer finds or sees a gun on your person during their contact with you, and you have not identified yourself as a permit holder in legal possession of a firearm, the officer may assume you are carrying the gun illegally and may take defensive action. For the safety of all involved, it is recommended to immediately identify yourself to the officer as a permit holder in possession of a handgun. This action gives the officer some assurance they are most likely dealing with a law abiding citizen."

I think this explains my attitude toward PD. Never had any issues either. ( 9 of 10 don't even bother checking my permit after the declaration and hardly even give me a glance it I'm walking around in the area. Last week, an LEo spent more time in front of me, with his back turned, than facing me, or even behind me.

 

[newguy]

i cant decide if this thread has become a pissing contest or just a big freaking circle jerk

 

[CTS]

i cant decide if this thread has become a pissing contest or just a big freaking circle jerk

Yes.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

i cant decide if this thread has become a pissing contest or just a big freaking circle jerk

Either way, dicks are involved. *




*Me being one.

 

[Latewatch]

Good thread idea, as long as comments follow the OP's rules and requests.

The best time to nip any unnecessary encounters is when the MWAG call is made. Face it -- most IN residents, including long-time gun owners, are completely ignorant of carry laws. If 911 operators knew the laws and could simply ask the caller, "What is the man with the gun doing? Is he threatening anyone with his gun?" perhaps no officer would need to be dispatched at all.

"Ma'am, are you aware that any IN resident who passes a required background check and possesses a license to do so can carry guns around in plain view?"

"Why, no, I didn't know that. Are you sure it's legal? It scares me."

"I'm sorry it scares you, ma'am, but if he's not threatening you or anyone else, he's likely carrying his gun legally. Do you still want me to send a police officer?"

"I guess not. I didn't know ..."

One thing that should be remembered is the litigious society that Police Agencies operate in. If we receive a call for service and for what ever reason, legitimate or not, decide not to respond and something happens...the agency will be sued and will most probably be found liable by a jury for not responding. The agency in that case will shell out millions of dollars and be crucified in the press.

So in this type of situation; a call for service from a citizen about a MWAG, we have two choices:
1. Respond and address the MWAG who may be totally legal or not with the possibility that they may feel that thier rights are being violated.
2. Assume that the MWAG is totally legal, not repond and assume the potential liability and the possibility that the complainant may feel that we are not doing our jobs, and believe me when I tell you that , they "know" the law better then us also.

Like I've said before, a LOT of common sense needs to be displayed by both sides during these interactions which will continue to occur for the foreseeable future. Hopefully both sides, LEO's and Gunowners, will take the chips off their shoulders and will handle these encounters with courtesy and respect.

 

[Jack Burton]

i cant decide if this thread has become a pissing contest or just a big freaking circle jerk

Some people are more willing to let bad information slide by...

 

[pirate]

Heard this thread was still going on. Wanted to place my mark of similar useless nonsense.


X

 

[griffin]

If we receive a call for service and for what ever reason, legitimate or not, decide not to respond and something happens...the agency will be sued and will most probably be found liable by a jury for not responding. The agency in that case will shell out millions of dollars.

Courts all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States have long held that the government has no responsibility to protect us.

Law-enforcement has no duty to protect individuals. South v. Maryland

There is no duty owed by the police, the city, or the state to act to prevent or avoid harm to citizens. Susman v. City of Los Angeles

The state has no affirmative duty to protect an individual, even if they know that person is in danger. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services

Neither the police nor the government is liable to victims for failure to provide adequate police protection. Warren v. District of Columbia

Police departments enjoy absolute immunity for failure to provide sufficient police protection. Hartzler v. City of San Jose

Neither cities nor police departments are responsible for failing to enforce restraining orders or protect citizens. Castle Rock v. Gonzales

“Failure to provide adequate police protection will not result in governmental liability, nor will a public entity be liable for failure to arrest a person who is violating the law.” Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrence

“There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered.” Bowers v. DeVito

 

[Water63]

I look at it like being stopped by a Conservation Officer if I am hunting or fishing they want to see my licence to make sure I have one. So if I am carrying a handgun I have no issue showing my LTCH to the officer. The way I look at it if they see you carrying a gun they have probable cause to check your LTCH the same as the CO checks your licence if you are hunting or fishing. A CO checks everyone that is out not just the ones they think are doing something wrong. As long as the officer is professional about the contact there should be no issue in my book. When you resist his request it appears that you have something to hide from him and they will react to that and the reaction is usually not a positive one. There should be no need for the officer to take the firearm and it should be a simple do you have you LTCH. The answer should be yes then present the LTCH to the officer and that should end the contact.

My

 

[thompal]

Heard this thread was still going on. Wanted to place my mark of similar useless nonsense.


X

Kind of like dropping a cow patty in the field of life?

 

[thebishopp]

Courts all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States have long held that the government has no responsibility to protect us.

Law-enforcement has no duty to protect individuals. South v. Maryland

There is no duty owed by the police, the city, or the state to act to prevent or avoid harm to citizens. Susman v. City of Los Angeles

The state has no affirmative duty to protect an individual, even if they know that person is in danger. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services

Neither the police nor the government is liable to victims for failure to provide adequate police protection. Warren v. District of Columbia

Police departments enjoy absolute immunity for failure to provide sufficient police protection. Hartzler v. City of San Jose

Neither cities nor police departments are responsible for failing to enforce restraining orders or protect citizens. Castle Rock v. Gonzales

“Failure to provide adequate police protection will not result in governmental liability, nor will a public entity be liable for failure to arrest a person who is violating the law.” Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrence

“There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered.” Bowers v. DeVito

 

[Hammerhead]

I have had exactly one (1) interaction with a LEO that involved my sidearm. The LEO came over to me at a festival and asked if I would cover up. My response was that "I really don't feel the urge."

She attempted to then suggest that I might be bothered with more official interactions by other LEOs if someone decided to cry MWAG. My response was simply "okay."

She then dropped the conversation and went back to her own business.

This is exactly how LEOs should be interacting with carriers. She made a request, and didn't get butthurt or forceful when I said no. She didn't ask for my LTCH and didn't follow me around to make sure I wasn't a criminal or dangerous. She didn't attempt to impose her opinion or make up her own laws.

Now I can only guess that she was a bit annoyed that I didn't comply and felt that I might be more willing to do so when faced with further interactions. Her annoyance was possibly that she (or her fellow officers) would have to come search me out should there be a MWAG call and she didn't want the extra work/hassle. However this is only speculation based upon the short time we spoke, and the exasperation in her voice.

I would have, upon request, presented my LTCH. I would not have accepted any further inquiry or interaction after that. And yes, I was recording the encounter.

As far as the OP and his question, I hope that my one interaction provides a positive example as to how LEOs should interact with the public, whether in an official capacity (i.e. traffic stops) or in passing. Professionalism, courtesy, and a lack of lumber inserted into various bodily orifices go a long way to keeping everyone safe, pleasant, and rights intact.

 

[Bunnykid68]

they "know" the law better then us also.

Really?

 

[EvilBlackGun]

They know the law ...

... better than WE know the law. Except when they make up the law.

Really?

 

[shadohman]

She attempted to then suggest that I might be bothered with more official interactions by other LEOs if someone decided to cry MWAG. My response was simply "okay."

She then dropped the conversation and went back to her own business.

This is intimidation not a suggestion, it comes down to cover up or else face the consequences.

 

[Hammerhead]

This is intimidation not a suggestion, it comes down to cover up or else face the consequences.

I don't think so. Her demeanor was more exasperated annoyance at the possibility of having to find me and deal with me officially than actually trying to get me to comply with her wishes. She wasn't being angry, mean spirited, or frustrated, and her body language was relaxed and alert, but not intimidating.

 

[shadohman]

having to find me and deal with me officially

This is the or else part of the intimidation. The LEO had already decided that you were not a threat or she would have at least checked out your LTCH status.

Intimidation | Define Intimidation at Dictionary.com

[/QUOTE]to overawe or cow, as through the force of personality or by superior display of wealth, talent, etc.[/QUOTE]