I Had a Discussion With a Friend...

[long coat]

If they refuse, and I can't articulate a reason for making a seizure, the weapon will stay in place until I have assistance from another officer.

What does that mean? You "can't articulate a reason for making a seizure", but then you do it anyway?

 

[Hammerhead]

No, he waits for the backup officer to come and try to "articulate" a reason. They just keep calling for backup until one of them can think of something.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What does that mean? You "can't articulate a reason for making a seizure", but then you do it anyway?

No, it means that I will wait for backup (since I feel uneasy). The weapon will not be removed. I just rather have someone, on my six, as support.

 

[vitamink]

well said

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Kutnupe14 - your approach totally makes sense - if uneasy , call for backup. I want you to go home safe.

As shibumiseeker pointed out though, all too often SOME officers think that ANYONE that carries needs to be disarmed. From the conversations that have happened here in the past it's obvious that such a mentality DOES exist amongst some of the officers. And in some departments, it's a broader group than in others. So Officer Coonfinger (had to steal that from KirkFreeman) is out with his K9 unit, Officer Chompy and they pull someone over for a taillight or something. Upon finding a legally armed citizen, Officer Coonfinger is all over the person's firearm like Michael Jackson at a Little League barbeque... (ok that was probably uncalled for - but you have to admit that it's accurate). We've all seen examples of Officer Coonfinger - and yep, he probably can barely clear his duty weapon. And since not Everyone Carries a Glock....

By all means, call for backup, if the situation makes you uneasy. And if a person is drunk, or unstable, hey I can see disarming them. The problem is with those that disarm the other 90% of us - WITHOUT ANY REASON. It's like pulling over all people of certain ethnic backgrounds ONLY because of their skin color. It's wrong. Perhaps some more clear training on the topic for Officer Coonfinger? It's clear from the conversations that training varies pretty widely across the state. As does the application of it by officers. And until that gets fixed - what choice do we have? We will complain and yell. And that's not anti-LEO at all.

 

[cobber]

Articulable facts that the subject is "armed and dangerous". If the facts are there, articulate them please. It's not rocket science.

Disarming someone just because there is a weapon known to be present is the same mindset as the Brady Bunch, who view the gun as the danger, regardless of the person carrying it. And want to disarm us all so we'll be 'safe'.

INGO members are not being anti-LEO by expecting LEOs to uphold the constitution, whether it's the 2d, 4th, or 5th A. It's in their oath, after all.

 

[shibumiseeker]

No, it means that I will wait for backup (since I feel uneasy). The weapon will not be removed. I just rather have someone, on my six, as support.

And this is exactly as how it should be. You get to go home safe, the citizen gets to go home safe.

The whole issue of the lone officer disarming a citizen has always bothered me. My gf would always call for backup if she was uneasy about the situation (not often, she's pretty confident) because the odds of such a situation turning violent increase when the person is being disarmed and at that point being a solo officer is more dangerous to the officer than having someone who can help intervene.

 

[Kedric]

A LEO disarming a citizen "for their safety" without cause is ridiculous to say the very least. I think most of us here can agree with that.

Someone mentioned a small minority of LTCH owners that 'should' be disarmed during the course of the interaction. Playing devil's advocate here (I am not a LEO hater by any means) that same logic says that I should then also be able to ask that small but very real percentage of LEOs that make ME feel uncomfortable or unsafe to please disarm during the same time. After all, I do not have the luxury of calling in backup and my need to get home safely is every bit as important as the officer's.

So, how many of those LEO's will give up their firearm for a citizen's safety and peace of mind?

 

[Rookie]

No, he waits for the backup officer to come and try to "articulate" a reason. They just keep calling for backup until one of them can think of something.

 

[Bapak2ja]

Wow. Let me weigh in here as 11 years road patrol as a police officer. If someone gives me a reason to hold onto a weapon during a stop, then I do it. I would say that 90% of the time, if not more, the weapon stays with the owner.
I can honestly say that the majority of the LTCH people I meet are good to deal with and no problems occur. I want these people carrying and appreciate they do, especially the one day I may be needing that help and my nearest uniform is 5-10 minutes away.
That being said, LTCH holders aren't always the finest upstanding individuals. There is a minority, just as in any group of people (police, doctors, preachers... you get my point) that I have seen demonstrate the need to be disarmed.

I find this a very wise, reasonable statement. You sound like the kind of LEO that I would trust. Thanks for your service and your wisdom.

 

[jeremy]

Wow. Let me weigh in here as 11 years road patrol as a police officer. If someone gives me a reason to hold onto a weapon during a stop, then I do it. I would say that 90% of the time, if not more, the weapon stays with the owner.
I can honestly say that the majority of the LTCH people I meet are good to deal with and no problems occur. I want these people carrying and appreciate they do, especially the one day I may be needing that help and my nearest uniform is 5-10 minutes away.
That being said, LTCH holders aren't always the finest upstanding individuals. There is a minority, just as in any group of people (police, doctors, preachers... you get my point) that I have seen demonstrate the need to be disarmed.

The more the Firearm is Handled the Higher the chances of an Accident. I generally carry a Sig either a P220 or P226, the only safety these pistols have is the Holster. Nothing I like better than handing them to someone I am NOT familiar with (and probably NOT aware that these Pistols do not have a Safety either) butt first. Due to the fact that their safety is more important than mine...

 

[EvilBlackGun]

Awaiting back-up.

The citizen waits while LEO back-up is coming. Time is noon. Citizen's friend in a pick-up sees citizen friend in a traffic stop, and pulls over and stops ahead of citizen and LEO. Potential "back-up" for citizen. Describe "rights" of citizen and friend to interact as friends.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The citizen waits while LEO back-up is coming. Time is noon. Citizen's friend in a pick-up sees citizen friend in a traffic stop, and pulls over and stops ahead of citizen and LEO. Potential "back-up" for citizen. Describe "rights" of citizen and friend to interact as friends.

I'd suggest your friend move.... promptly. I don't play these types of games on the streets.

Edit: but to answer the question, you won't be allowed to interact, at all.

 

[billyboyr6]

A friend of mine was pulled over for a headlight that was out, and at the time he was carrying his S&W 629 4" gun. It was holstered and laying in the passenger seat. As the officer approached, he saw the revolver laying in the seat and asked for my friends LTCH and his ID and registration. My friend happily handed them to the officer. The officer then asked if my friend if he would allow him (the leo) to take my friends gun to his car and run the #'s. My friend handed it to the officer, stating that it was loaded, and the officer told him that it was ok. After running the #'s the Leo handed all (including the gun still loaded and holstered) back to my friend. He was issued a verbal warning for the headlight.

I have absolutely no problem with the way the Leo handled the situation, and would gladly do the same if I were asked and not ordered to let him have my gun.

 

[thebishopp]

A LEO disarming a citizen "for their safety" without cause is ridiculous to say the very least. I think most of us here can agree with that.

Someone mentioned a small minority of LTCH owners that 'should' be disarmed during the course of the interaction. Playing devil's advocate here (I am not a LEO hater by any means) that same logic says that I should then also be able to ask that small but very real percentage of LEOs that make ME feel uncomfortable or unsafe to please disarm during the same time. After all, I do not have the luxury of calling in backup and my need to get home safely is every bit as important as the officer's.

So, how many of those LEO's will give up their firearm for a citizen's safety and peace of mind?

England! :-)

 

[VERT]

A friend of mine was pulled over for a headlight that was out, and at the time he was carrying his S&W 629 4" gun. It was holstered and laying in the passenger seat. As the officer approached, he saw the revolver laying in the seat and asked for my friends LTCH and his ID and registration. My friend happily handed them to the officer. The officer then asked if my friend if he would allow him (the leo) to take my friends gun to his car and run the #'s. My friend handed it to the officer, stating that it was loaded, and the officer told him that it was ok. After running the #'s the Leo handed all (including the gun still loaded and holstered) back to my friend. He was issued a verbal warning for the headlight.

I have absolutely no problem with the way the Leo handled the situation, and would gladly do the same if I were asked and not ordered to let him have my gun.

I guess I see no real reason to run the numbers. Yes lawful gunowners may have inadvertently bought a stolen gun, but lets be practical. I am sure that running those numbers took resources away from other law enforcement activities. I have a friend that used to always run numbers. Heck used to even run them for me if I bought a used gun. His chief told told the department to stop doing this unless there was a valid reason.

 

[thebishopp]

I'd suggest your friend move.... promptly. I don't play these types of games on the streets.

Edit: but to answer the question, you won't be allowed to interact, at all.

Though if they are not causing a traffic hazard of some type they could video you from a reasonable distance.

 

[Lead Head]

A LEO disarming a citizen "for their safety" without cause is ridiculous to say the very least. I think most of us here can agree with that.

Someone mentioned a small minority of LTCH owners that 'should' be disarmed during the course of the interaction. Playing devil's advocate here (I am not a LEO hater by any means) that same logic says that I should then also be able to ask that small but very real percentage of LEOs that make ME feel uncomfortable or unsafe to please disarm during the same time. After all, I do not have the luxury of calling in backup and my need to get home safely is every bit as important as the officer's.

So, how many of those LEO's will give up their firearm for a citizen's safety and peace of mind?

Having some LEO relatives in the past plus LEO friends of family, etc., I can say they don't bother me. They chose a tough and underpaid job, just like many of us. What I do know is not all LEO's are proficient in the use of general firearms and primarily train with their duty weapon for qualification and occasional practice. Their duty weapon is a work tool and many can't wait to get all that weight off at the end of the day/night and forget about work, just like most everyone else.

Many non-LEO gun owners take a much broader interest in gun ownership and train in the use of a wider variety. It's a hobby and unlike many (not all) LEO's, we can't wait until the next trip to the range or losing sleep over finding our next firearm. Some hobbyists may be well versed on types from historic to modern.

Yes there are expert level, advance and interested LEO's out there that can field strip most anything blindfolded, but I don't think that's the case for the average working patrol/traffic officer. I said average so don't spazz. Being average is okay regardless of what others may say.

My point is similar to others: Disarming a LTCH with a loaded, chambered firearm that the LEO is unfamiliar with could potentially lead to disaster. I don't want to get shot and being shot "accidentally" would suck twice as bad, especially if someone else did it.

With the rapid trend for LTCH licenses and the actual legal carry of handguns, the risk of an accidental discharge from being disarmed could lead to ruining someone's day, career or life.

Please don't ruin my day or anything else.

 

[TMU317]

Though if they are not causing a traffic hazard of some type they could video you from a reasonable distance.

I would say they need to find something better to do if that is the case. Not to mention the fact that the vast majority of the time the only thing they will see is an officer approach the car which has been stopped, speak with the driver, return to his/her police car, approach the driver again and speak some more/issue citation, return to his police car and leave. Sounds like a waste of time to me.

 

[thebishopp]

I would say they need to find something better to do if that is the case. Not to mention the fact that the vast majority of the time the only thing they will see is an officer approach the car which has been stopped, speak with the driver, return to his/her police car, approach the driver again and speak some more/issue citation, return to his police car and leave. Sounds like a waste of time to me.

There are enough videos of some pretty crazy things out there that contradicts your stance. Fortunately in those cases some one was "wasting their time" and got it on tape.

This goes for both civilian as well as law enforcement encounters.

It's much like insurance. Waste of money till you need it. Come to think of it, it's like owning firearms as well. You don't really need a gun until you NEED a gun.