Is this standard opporating procedure?

[IndyDave1776]

I don't profess to have the ability to resolve this disagreement, but the elements seem pretty simple to me while two basic groups are each failing to account for the other side of the argument. This is largely based on the fact that it is human nature to measure others according to the image in the mirror and to form our expectations based on personal experience.

First, the LEO perspective: It is easy to understand anyone's having the goal to arrive home safe at the end of the day. Honorable officers tend to believe that being honorable is standard. As a result, they do not understand the negative reactions to doing what they consider necessary. Add to this being in an area where s**t happens with greater than average regularity at a time when most of the better folks are in bed, and the knowledge that the person being stopped may have a bushel basket full of outstanding warrants and probably never see the outside of prison again if the officer runs his ID, and serious concern is in order.

Second, the perspective of those of us with significant experience with LEOs who are, well, not of the quality of the prevailing standard among present company. When you have a lot of background with departments full of the worst criminals in the community, it changes your perspective. When your experience is that the cop approaching is most likely NFG especially if he is out late without an audience of bystanders, you can safely conclude that if the cop approaches you with a gun in hand someone is NOT going to leave unharmed and he has already decided that he intends that someone to be you, what are the chances that any right-thinking person is going to be compliant and accept this in the name of officer safety?

Those involved in this discussion are honorable officers and citizens who do not intend to engage in criminal activity or have enough outstanding warrants to paper a wall. Unfortunately, we have to deal with exceptions on both sides and randomly encountering strangers is always going to be a difficult situation regardless of details, more so under the circumstances addressed above. That said, I have a serious issue with police preemptively treating me like a criminal especially in light of my personal experiences in which the shoe fits the other foot quite well.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I just had an idea. Why not have police officers address minor traffic violations just like static traffic cameras?

• When they observe someone breaking a rule, use cameras mounted on the vehicle to get an image of the vehicle, license plate, and driver (if possible).
• If the driver continues to break the regulation(s), hit the red & blue lights. If they return to operating their vehicle within the rules (which should be the goal), no other action by the officer is necessary.
• Driver received the bad news in the mail, just like when they are busted by a traffic camera.
• If they continue the infraction or worse, then stop the vehicle as is done now.

This could:

• Eliminate a lot of unnecessary interactions between private citizens and police officers
• Save time for everyone involved
• Save money for taxpayers
• Eliminate the inherent risks of stopping vehicles on busy roads and freeways
• Retain the option of more intensive interaction when needed (as noted above)

How does the officer know who the driver is if they don't stop the vehicle?

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

So, the cop shot the guy in your original post? Did he fail in his resolution, or was that never his intent to begin with? No BECAUSE THE INTENT WAS DEFENSIVE IN NATURE FROM THE START.

No one doubts there are some corrupt cops. No one doubts some cops have made mistakes. However nothing in your post has yet shown me the threat of a cop with a drawn gun hidden being any greater threat than one with a holstered gun. If I wanted to murder you, you think I'd just walk up with my gun out and put one in you? I haven't put much thought into it, but I'm sure that's the stupidest way to be a corrupt murdering cop.

The only thing frustrating me is your irrationality about the whole matter could end up getting you or a cop killed, and I don't like either result. If your goal actually is to go home, and not engage in being "macho" as you referred to it earlier, and understand that there is no threat level difference between "gun hidden" and "gun holstered" and that the cop is in charge of the traffic stop, then change your programming. If not, then change your stated goal, as doing things like refusing to stop and having a handgun under your thing decrease your chance of going home.

This does not to even have to be about the admittedly rare crooked cop. This is about the practice of handling a loaded firearm on public streets. If you were serious about the defensive posture thing, then it would be the thing for me to do also. Why would you be afraid for me to meet you at the drivers window with MY gun in my hand? why could this result in one or both of us being killed? Lets look at this;

"However nothing in your post has yet shown me the threat of a (CITIZEN) with a drawn gun hidden being any greater threat than one with a holstered gun. If I wanted to murder (A POLICE OFFICER), you think I'd just walk up with my gun out and put one in (THE COP)?

Notice the dichotomy here. Your statement which is so rational in your perspective is so very wrong when it is looked at from my perspective by inserting the bold words where yours are. The difference between the two scenarios is that by your own words, my DEFENSIVE posture will get one or both of us killed while you EXPECT me to submit to your DEFENSIVE posture. The greater threat is that you won't even hesitate to shoot the driver if you decide that you need to while the driver is expected to submit himself under your weapon just like a good little German.

As far as the cop being "In Charge" let me remind you of some things that I KNOW you already know, you are only in charge because the CITIZEN allows this in the interest of society. When you stop me, I KNOW that you are barking up the wrong tree. I ALLOW this little nuisance because it is the only way for you to be able to do the job that I HIRED YOU FOR. The sovereign citizen is the highest authority in the hierarchy of a republic. A republics entire governing body governs by the authority and will of it's CITIZENS. As you are doing your job every day you should think occasionally that the authority you are working with is not your authority at all but rather MINE.

From other posts I believe that you are a good and honorable man who does his job very professionally. It's still good to remind yourself that your being "In Charge" is not Carte Blanche.

Well, I guess what is good for the goose is good for the gander. It sounds like your "paranoia" is because of what may have happened to you in the past and as you put it "the sins of the fathers falling in the sons." I guess I can also say my "paranoia" is also from the sins of the bad guys who killed other officers on traffic stops. I guess when I am cautious it is a result of seeing my friends in coffins for just doing their jobs. I guess if it is OK for you to paint all officers because of the actions of the few it is OK for me to do that as well for those who have murdered officers.

I also want you to go home at the end of your day but I have been tasked as a police officer to enforce all laws and that includes traffic violations. One of the biggest complaints we get at neighborhood meetings is traffic related.

Here you go! ticktwrter, We are both on the very same page! Thanks much for agreeing that "I guess what is good for the goose is good for the gander". That's exactly what I have been saying. It is no more reasonable for you to meet me with gun in hand than it is for me to do the same thing. Yes, we both act on the weight of our experiences True that. You guys can make the observation that officers are more professional than they were in the '70s and '80s. I will give you one example, cops today have to be college boys. Back in the day literally ANYBODY could be a cop. Today a cop is heavily invested in his profession and has a lot to loose. That is a HUGE improvement.

I respect that you have a task to do. That is why I even submit myself to your interference in my life, to facilitate your ability
to perform your duties. We both want the same end product. Just keep in mind that the traffic violator is not a doormat, or a rabid dog. If there are times that you perceive a threat and you draw your gun then I suppose that I should suffer that. As Frank posted it's not prohibited to do so. You just make sure that you don't MANUFACTURE a murderer by scaring the s**t out of a normally law abiding citizen who could be prone to acting on his past experiences.

I don't profess to have the ability to resolve this disagreement, but the elements seem pretty simple to me while two basic groups are each failing to account for the other side of the argument. This is largely based on the fact that it is human nature to measure others according to the image in the mirror and to form our expectations based on personal experience.

First, the LEO perspective: It is easy to understand anyone's having the goal to arrive home safe at the end of the day. Honorable officers tend to believe that being honorable is standard. As a result, they do not understand the negative reactions to doing what they consider necessary. Add to this being in an area where s**t happens with greater than average regularity at a time when most of the better folks are in bed, and the knowledge that the person being stopped may have a bushel basket full of outstanding warrants and probably never see the outside of prison again if the officer runs his ID, and serious concern is in order.

Second, the perspective of those of us with significant experience with LEOs who are, well, not of the quality of the prevailing standard among present company. When you have a lot of background with departments full of the worst criminals in the community, it changes your perspective. When your experience is that the cop approaching is most likely NFG especially if he is out late without an audience of bystanders, you can safely conclude that if the cop approaches you with a gun in hand someone is NOT going to leave unharmed and he has already decided that he intends that someone to be you, what are the chances that any right-thinking person is going to be compliant and accept this in the name of officer safety?

Those involved in this discussion are honorable officers and citizens who do not intend to engage in criminal activity or have enough outstanding warrants to paper a wall. Unfortunately, we have to deal with exceptions on both sides and randomly encountering strangers is always going to be a difficult situation regardless of details, more so under the circumstances addressed above. That said, I have a serious issue with police preemptively treating me like a criminal especially in light of my personal experiences in which the shoe fits the other foot quite well.

Indy Dave has a firm understanding of the issue. The thing is this, I wasn't out to make an issue. I saw a thing that superficially looked like the standard policing of my youth. Seeing as how I have believed that things have gotten better in Indianapolis since then, I simply asked if this was once again SOP or not. I haven't attacked the officer that I saw. I haven't made a judgement that he was not justified. I was I suppose, second guessing his action. I do have an eye on the conduct of our public officials, I make no apology for that. Yes I am sensitive because of my experiences with law enforcement in the distant past, I believe that is ok too. This has degraded into the usual and predictable cops vs turds pi**ing match and I participated as well as anybody. Public discourse is good. Airing of perceptions is good too. Everybody knows where we stand whether we agree or disagree.

To the police here I appoligise if I stepped on your toes. I do not apologize for my libertarian politics but those same libertarian beliefs mandate that I give you your space also. I will NEVER approve of bringing weapons to bear against the common citizenry by the .gov. On the other hand the .gov has got to get these thugs off my lawn. This is a problem that I don't have a perfect solution available. Both citizen and public official have unique issues that clash with the other to a certain extent. Add the fact that the officials are ALSO citizens...... And that citizens have a responsibility/self interest to see that the laws are enforced. There will be friction. Friction with a firearm behind my back does get me going as you can well see.

 

[Trigger Time]

If he was concerned enough to have his weapon drawn, why didn't he approach on the passenger side?

Or call for assistance.

 

[Trigger Time]

The report that was just released on the dorhmer incident out in California is a interesting read. Some cops and civilians like to call legal gun owners who carry "cowboys". There was lots of "cop cowboys" pointing guns at each other, rushing to get in on the action when they weren't even supposed to and causing uncontrolled chaos and risking fellow Leo's and civilian lives.
Cops are gonna do what cops wanna do who's gonna stop them. These issues need pressed on a political level and all levels of our govt need reeled back in.
If it's that serious that a gun needs drawn then I think they need a better policy. That's my opinion. Cops can have theirs. There's other ways to safely go home at night.

 

[ticktwrter]

Or call for assistance.

Sometimes assistance isn't available. Folks, the vast majority of the officers I work with want nothing to do with being involved in a shoot out. Unfortunately, ambushes of officers are increasing and we are cautious. I guess if I walk up to a car and the person has his gun on his lap we will see where things go.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Sounds to me that the OP had a flashback to another place and time and is looking to rehash the events of that era when he observed the officer as described in the OP.

Not a flashback. It did bring back memories of a horrible culture and a time when up was down and black was white. There was a time in Indy that I never want us to go back to. Just memories, no drug induced hallucinations, no psychotic fantasy, just bad memories of an ugly time. I have no real indication that the officer was acting inappropriately. He seemed to be making an effort to not alarm the driver with his suspicions, very admirable of him. It did however remind me of when an Indy officer would shove a gun into your face just to teach you your place, To teach you to be submissive like a subject should be.

Like I have said several times, I was checking on that. And I got some answers too, plus.... That's ok too. If I can's stand the heat I shouldn't ask questions in the kitchen! I did get an irritation from one nobody who is amused by a young life cut abruptly short, Barking dogs will bark though..... You can't shoot em.....

 

[Destro]

Sometimes assistance isn't available.

Sometimes Gaston Glock is your only backup for 15 miles

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Sometimes assistance isn't available. Folks, the vast majority of the officers I work with want nothing to do with being involved in a shoot out. Unfortunately, ambushes of officers are increasing and we are cautious. I guess if I walk up to a car and the person has his gun on his lap we will see where things go.

Just do the best that you know how and try to not make any mistakes. I don't have any better ideas than that.

Maybe practice your quick-draw? You can't write a ticket holding that pistol, Eventually you will have to eat.... Or pee.....At some point you will HAVE to put it away. I suppose that leaves you vulnerable.

 

[KG1]

Not a flashback. It did bring back memories of a horrible culture and a time when up was down and black was white. There was a time in Indy that I never want us to go back to. Just memories, no drug induced hallucinations, no psychotic fantasy, just bad memories of an ugly time. I have no real indication that the officer was acting inappropriately. He seemed to be making an effort to not alarm the driver with his suspicions, very admirable of him. It did however remind me of when an Indy officer would shove a gun into your face just to teach you your place, To teach you to be submissive like a subject should be.

Like I have said several times, I was checking on that. And I got some answers too, plus.... That's ok too. If I can's stand the heat I shouldn't ask questions in the kitchen! I did get an irritation from one nobody who is amused by a young life cut abruptly short, Barking dogs will bark though..... You can't shoot em.....

Fair enough and I guess my use of the term "flashback" does tend to conjure up a negative connotation at times but I can assure you that it was not my intention.

My post was meant as a simple observation on my part as to the way I interpreted where you were coming from in the OP.

 

[ShootnCut]

This isn't directed solely at the OP but rather everyone caught up in the thread.

Scenario #1:
Police officer all alone, late at night on an isolated road stops a car and because he approaches said vehicle with an unholstered weapon he's paranoid, threatening, and using poor judgement.

Scenario #2:
Civilian walking into a restaurant, early evening in a well lit establishment sits down to eat and because he's proudly displaying his open carry handgun he's not being paranoid, threatening or using poor judgement. He's just exercising his rights. And even though none of those strangers know who he is, they should be grateful because he's making the place safe for all.

I guess what it boils down to is everyone wants to enjoy THEIR rights. When THEY see something that concerns THEM, THEY cry about someone stepping on THEIR rights. When someone else sees THEM doing something that concerns that person that's too bad because: "How dare they try to tell ME what I can or cannot do?"

And as far as law enforcement......... If you don't like the way the police are doing their jobs then become an officer yourself. Then you can bring your infinite wisdom and experience to the table and show everyone how it's done. But to criticize an officer for having a gun in hand while stopping an unknown, (or possibly very well known) person, late, on a dark desolate road to me is ludicrous. If the stop didn't involve you and no one got hurt then it's really no one's business but the occupant(s) in the car, the officer and the department he works for.
If a half dozen punks walked into the restaurant you were eating at with their hoods over their heads, talking loudly would you calmly examine the situation or would you use that very line, "I'm going home tonight!" and draw your weapon?

 

[T755]

Well sir I hope you do block me if that helps you. I may not post often, but I have been there done that in a career spanning 20yrs come June. I hope you get help for your situation that seems to be truly holding you back in life. I like many other persons of my employment log on here and watch mostly. I comment when I think it could be of value or I feel the need to given the tone of the conversation. 99% of the time I see great people and generally welcome a good debate. I admit I've grown tired of the police bashing and the bravado of they aren't gonna do this or that. But I try to keep in mind they don't speak for everyone. I don't have a thing to prove nor a thing to loose being on here or not. I found the comments of "you'll shoot your eye out" bitter and the stuff of late night call in rants. Those of us that can remember the corruption of the Churchill years, not the prime minister, or the stolen car ring agree that those were not good years. But guess what that time is past and as departments go this one is fairly "clean". As far as the original post I cannot stress enough. Right or wrong when the police deal with you they are in charge. Play what ever game is going on and go your way. If you don't like how you were treated… complain formally… you don't agree with what was done…. file a formal complaint… call channel 6….. work to change the rules with the civilian review board when they have times for public input or at a council meeting. And this is the part that truly scares me. Someone might read the comments and bravado and see a police officer approach their vehicle with a weapon out and escalate it to a level that a apology, further training, civil torts or criminal charges can't correct. Thats my two cents worth. Take it as you will

 

[KG1]

This isn't directed solely at the OP but rather everyone caught up in the thread.

Scenario #1:
Police officer all alone, late at night on an isolated road stops a car and because he approaches said vehicle with an unholstered weapon he's paranoid, threatening, and using poor judgement.

Scenario #2:
Civilian walking into a restaurant, early evening in a well lit establishment sits down to eat and because he's proudly displaying his open carry handgun he's not being paranoid, threatening or using poor judgement. He's just exercising his rights. And even though none of those strangers know who he is, they should be grateful because he's making the place safe for all.

I guess what it boils down to is everyone wants to enjoy THEIR rights. When THEY see something that concerns THEM, THEY cry about someone stepping on THEIR rights. When someone else sees THEM doing something that concerns that person that's too bad because: "How dare they try to tell ME what I can or cannot do?"

And as far as law enforcement......... If you don't like the way the police are doing their jobs then become an officer yourself. Then you can bring your infinite wisdom and experience to the table and show everyone how it's done. But to criticize an officer for having a gun in hand while stopping an unknown, (or possibly very well known) person, late, on a dark desolate road to me is ludicrous. If the stop didn't involve you and no one got hurt then it's really no one's business but the occupant(s) in the car, the officer and the department he works for.
If a half dozen punks walked into the restaurant you were eating at with their hoods over their heads, talking loudly would you calmly examine the situation or would you use that very line, "I'm going home tonight!" and draw your weapon?

The part I highlighted in bold is pretty much a ridiculous statement whenever someone uses it in a debate. It would sound just as ridiculous if I used the statement when I make a complaint about any profession.

"Well if you don't like the way someone is driving that truck then become a truck driver" or howbout? "If you don't like the way someone threw a burger together that you ordered at a fast food joint then get a job there and show them how it's done"

 

[rhino]

How does the officer know who the driver is if they don't stop the vehicle?

How do the traffic cameras?

 

[ticktwrter]

Just do the best that you know how and try to not make any mistakes. I don't have any better ideas than that.

Maybe practice your quick-draw? You can't write a ticket holding that pistol, Eventually you will have to eat.... Or pee.....At some point you will HAVE to put it away. I suppose that leaves you vulnerable.

Thanks for the smart ass comments.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

How do the traffic cameras?

They don't. Jurisdictions with traffic cameras send the ticket to the registered owner in my admittedly limited exposure to them.

This does not to even have to be about the admittedly rare crooked cop. This is about the practice of handling a loaded firearm on public streets. If you were serious about the defensive posture thing, then it would be the thing for me to do also. Why would you be afraid for me to meet you at the drivers window with MY gun in my hand? why could this result in one or both of us being killed? Lets look at this;

"However nothing in your post has yet shown me the threat of a (CITIZEN) with a drawn gun hidden being any greater threat than one with a holstered gun. If I wanted to murder (A POLICE OFFICER), you think I'd just walk up with my gun out and put one in (THE COP)?

Notice the dichotomy here.

You've yet to name one compliant motorist shot by a cop in Indiana. Not one. You know why? Because it doesn't happen.

Want me to name cops shot by armed motorist?

The dichotomy comes from the fact you are defending yourself against a non-threat that stems solely from your imagination, an imagination that compels you to say things like it was fatal to not run from the police in the 90s, (I'm sure there's plenty of INGO folks who can put the lie to that because they were stopped by the police in the 90's, failed to run, and were not killed), and are in fact increasing your danger by your irrational actions based on your make believe world. You are the guy using road flares to light his house because he fears an electrical fire.

Like the racist with his one black friend who's a credit to his race, you seem to think I'm special. I'm "one of the good ones" or however you phrase it. I'm not special, the vast vast vast majority of my brothers and sisters on IMPD are 'the good ones' because that's the norm. I am in charge on a traffic stop if I make it, and if a uniformed guy pulls me over, he's in charge. That's how it works. That doesn't mean the officer can order you to eat a piece of glass, but it does mean that he can stop you and conduct his traffic stop as he sees fit within the guidelines of case law at the federal and state level as well as relevant codes and laws. The fact you disagree with it is not a moral or legal reason to flee or have a shootout.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Ok Blue Eyes, I concede. I do believe that you have changed my mind. I asked if we were back to this point and the answer seems to be that yes, yes we are. It indeed is cops vs turds in your blue eyes..... You really do believe that the police are "In Charge" of the citizenry. Do you know what we call a state where this is true? We call that a "Fascist State"

No, you aren't SPECIAL at all. you and your brothers are looking just like people who want to be "IN CHARGE" in their own imaginary Fascist state.

I honestly don't want to be harsh or judgmental, I truly don't know what else to think. Yes, I believe that you have answered my question very definitively.

 

[X piller X]

 

[Destro]

No, you aren't SPECIAL at all. you and your brothers are looking just like people who want to be "IN CHARGE" in their own imaginary Fascist state.

Most cops have wanted to BE cops before they could even grasp the idea of of a Fascist government or being "IN CHARGE" of anything was

 

[LANShark42]

I honestly don't want to be harsh or judgmental