Is this standard opporating procedure?

[BehindBlueI's]

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.

That's not what I said, although doubtlessly its how it appears to you.

I said a cop who initiates a traffic stop is in charge of that traffic stop. That's true. Even when I'm stopped (and I'm a cop, remember) he's in charge. You take that and eliminate both the context and the boundaries. You'd rather decide you were wrong about me than wrong about police in general. It's tough to admit your worldview is wrong, much easier to say you must have read that one guy wrong.

In a court room, the judge is in charge. Is that fascist? Because the judge is now in charge of the citizens?

Upthread, someone mentioned he answers his door with a gun hidden behind his leg. Who's in charge during an interaction between a home owner and someone knocking on the door? The home owner. He has the authority to trespass the visitor if he so chooses, he has the castle doctrine to defend his home if he is forced to, and he has the authority to invite the person in and engage them in conversation if he so chooses.

So, if your car broke down at 2am and you had to knock on someone's door for help, knowing that the home owner may have an unholstered gun, should you also unholster your gun and hide it "to defend yourself" from the home owner? How would INGO, and society as a whole, look at someone answering their door at 2am to a stranger taking precautions in case they needed to defend their home vs a stranger knocking on their door at 2am with a gun drawn just in case they needed to defend themselves? Which one would be in the moral and legal right if their decisions resulted in a shoot out?

Knowing nothing else about either gun owner, you know who you'd side with. Why? Probably, because home invasions happen with enough frequency that its realistic for the homeowner to take precautions, but people randomly getting shot for knocking on doors either doesn't happen or is so infrequent as to be paranoid and delusional...and the act of trying to prevent this non-event makes it more likely for one or both of you to get hurt.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

See, right here. You are making every effort to rationally explain. You do seem to be honestly concerned about citizen and police relations. You are looking like the very model of what I want and expect in my police officers. You are telling me that the vast majority of officers are just like you, and I believe you. Here is the rub; You are equating your position as a police officer/judge with the position of being a HOMEOWNER. You see the citizen as an unknown intruder or visitor to YOUR HOME.

We have a political disconnect right here. To me you are NO OWNER. To me you are a hired expert I use to manage MY home. When I hire an Arborist for instance, I am ALLOWING him to be "in charge" of my trees. If my butler is a good one, and he maintains the control of MY home the way I like, then I should even suffer him to slap my feet off of the Queen Ann coffee table. He can tell me to leave my muddy boots in the hall, because That's what I hired him for.

I must say that I am surprised that you have sat back, re grouped and tried to explain AGAIN, instead of for instance posting a photograph of Jack Nicholson. (ingeniously funny retort even if unhelpful) I respect your patience and willingness to discuss. I do recognize what you are saying. There is a certain decorum necessary for society to function. What I am not willing to recognize is the tyrannic view that the .gov is the "OWNER" of this Republic. I have perceived a slow slide toward tyranny for some time. That is what made me ask about the drawn guns thing in the beginning.

What I am going to do is this, I am going to put this down and walk away from it. You carry yourself well. You are patient and concerned. You are involved and steadfast in your resolve. You look like a very good officer. It's what seems to be your politics that scares the hell out of me. You sir are a MANAGER. You, at least in your OFFICIAL capacity are no OWNER.

Our differences I suppose should be reserved for the voting booth.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

See, right here. You are making every effort to rationally explain. You do seem to be honestly concerned about citizen and police relations. You are looking like the very model of what I want and expect in my police officers. You are telling me that the vast majority of officers are just like you, and I believe you. Here is the rub; You are equating your position as a police officer/judge with the position of being a HOMEOWNER. You see the citizen as an unknown intruder or visitor to YOUR HOME.

Nope. I see people wielding authority in a way granted to them by society as a whole in a certain context. The homeowner was simply one analogy for authority in context I thought everyone could relate to and understand and one that did not involve a government actor, so it could be analyzed without the normal political bias that making one side or the other "the man" brings to the table. I could have used a construction worker acting as a flag man, I suppose. He is in charge of traffic in a certain context, and can delay your travel that in another context would be illegal. He is wielding authority over you based on context as well. A pilot doesn't own his plane, and I would guess that most captain's don't own their ship, but when they are operating their respective vehicles they have authority over their passengers.

Ownership is simply one context that authority can be derived from, and its patently ridiculous to say because you recognize authority in one context to stem from ownership, than all authority stems from ownership. I'll note that the examples you use stem from economic standing. Your authority stems from the fact you are paying the bill. That doesn't mean you think your arborist is a slave and that you own him. You instinctively recognize that this is a totally different source of authority.

 

[Beau]

There is no such thing as a routine traffic stop. In Colorado state trooper was recently shot and critically wounded stopping to check on a disabled vehicle. Here in Indiana, I know of two incidents where state troopers were shot and killed stopping to check on disabled cars. I usually approach cars I stop with my hand on my holstered gun. If I were perceiving a threat as I approached, my gun would be in my hand. I have done this numerous times in my career and the driver has never known. Sorry, I go home at the end of my shift if I have anything to say about it

By this logic if I'm walking through an area where criminal activity frequently takes place I would be okay to walk down the street with my gun in hand? What if there were people walking toward me and I was uncertain of their intent?

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

No, you don't have to give someone the chance to kill you before you draw your weapon. As INGO points out all the time, there is no 'brandishing' law in Indiana, only pointing a firearm. Common sense goes a long way, or to be more legal-beagle, "reaonableness".

By this logic if I'm walking through an area where criminal activity frequently takes place I would be okay to walk down the street with my gun in hand? What if there were people walking toward me and I was uncertain of their intent?

BBEs has addressed this, There is no law that requires your weapon to be holstered..... Aside from the law of common sense. lets just look at this, You are approaching me with your gun in hand when I see you. (legal) I access perhaps wrongly that your gun is for ME and I draw MY own gun. (legal) You then are certain that I drew my gun for YOU and are intimidated, you raise your gun at me. (pointing, illegal) I then am validated in my mind that I drew my weapon and then open fire on you (legal? illegal?) you then are under fire and return fire (legal? illegal?)

Legal or not that whole scenario is ridiculous and the whole tragedy was instigated by the very legal activity of walking around town coonfingering a gun. It could go other ways too, accidental discharges, such as dropping the gun. Negligent discharges such as gripping it tightly and squeezing one off after getting scared sh**less by my drawing MY gun. The whole idea of approaching people for first contact with a gun in hand is foolish except under very specific circumstances.

Our discussion is not if it is LEGAL but if it is SMART. Johnny Law is relying very heavily on his authority and uniform to protect him from a citizen's bad reaction to his gun, and there is some credibility to that. Unfortunately that does not address that the officer is a representative of the .gov and the citizen has a right to be free of the governments guns, Or more accurately to be free of government intimidation. Neither does it address if a citizen Is mandated to accept a mistaken or accidental bullet, or even the RISK of one by law and without recourse of defensive actions of their own.

Everyone is getting frisky and a bit hot under the collar...... INGO entertainment, that's why we are all here!

 

[KG1]

Something to keep in mind is that all this discussion is built on the foundation in which none of us know what the reason was for the officer to take the position he did with gun in hand at low ready behind his leg when approaching the vehicle he pulled over.

I am not of the opinion that it is SOP to take that position in each and every vehicle stop.

 

[rugertoter]

Maybe the plate came up as a possible threat?

 

[ShootnCut]

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"

I don't think it is ridiculous at all. What I think is ridiculous is people whining about how LE does their job while they sit comfortably behind their keyboard with their gun on the table beside them. In today's society you can't trust anyone. And if a police officer wants to hold his gun at his side while on a traffic stop so as not to get shot by some spoiled, sniveling punk whose daddy and mommy taught him he could do no wrong then so be it. And I think it's ridiculous that so many want to walk around with their gun in plain sight and claim it's their right but when a LEO has his drawn on a late night secluded stop they complain. So I stand behind what I said. You go out and put on a gun and badge and pull over someone you don't know, late at night, all alone, with the knowledge that officers get shot just for stopping someone with a broken tail light. I'm surprised they don't get out with a shotgun. A lot of European police walk around with sub machine guns and no one gives it any thought. But I guess those countries aren't as concerned with being politically correct.
As far as the truck driver/fast food reference......Well, that might be a plausible comparison if either one of those professions required you to put your life on the line every time you went to work. Since that isn't the case that whole analogy sounds ridiculous. We're not talking about some truck driver who forgot to use his turn signal or some kid who forgot the cheese on your burger. We're talking about an officer who exercised what he thought was situational awareness in dealing with a traffic stop that no one here knows the details of. But there are so many who are quick to jump up and cry foul. How does that differ from the citizens who cry foul about your open carry? No one got hurt in either situation. No law was broken in either situation. In fact the only difference I see is the fact that the butthurt is going in the other direction.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Or more accurately to be free of government intimidation. Neither does it address if a citizen Is mandated to accept a mistaken or accidental bullet, or even the RISK of one by law and without recourse of defensive actions of their own.

Which by your own remarks were never an issue. There was no intimidation and the only risk from an ND was the officer himself. Which is why I've found it odd you found it grounds to suggest you'd flee and 'defend yourself' if you knew an officer was approaching with his handgun drawn but hidden. Are you now retracting that, or are you still holding to that position?

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

(snicker, snicker) He said "butthurt" (he he he)

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Which by your own remarks were never an issue. There was no intimidation and the only risk from an ND was the officer himself. Which is why I've found it odd you found it grounds to suggest you'd flee and 'defend yourself' if you knew an officer was approaching with his handgun drawn but hidden. Are you now retracting that, or are you still holding to that position?

The discussion has migrated far beyond the simple original question. Several scenarios and permutations have been offered and discussed. The evolutionary rate of this thread rivals that of the fruit fly. Now we have come full circle.

My position; Is it standard operating procedure to approach a traffic stop with gun drawn even if hidden? If it is, then I am very much threatened by this. I don't approve. I don't trust any random yahoo coonfingering a firearm in public behind my back or behind they're own back for that matter. Kirk says don't play with it. We talk about unholstering in gun shops and how dangerous that is. We discuss that it's better for an officer to leave MY gun in my pocket rather than risking danger by disarming me during traffic stops. I can give a basket-load of questionable/accidental shootings in Indianapolis. That is not even to mention the mental/emotional state of the officer who deems it necessary to approach me in this fearful demeanor.

EEZ GUN! EEZ NOT SAFE!. Now since I have my answers and much more to boot, I am doing as I said I would..... I am laying this down and walking away. Now to paraphrase another INGO member YSYEO-OUT! (that means I am done here)

 

[X piller X]

See, right here. You are making every effort to rationally explain. You do seem to be honestly concerned about citizen and police relations. You are looking like the very model of what I want and expect in my police officers. You are telling me that the vast majority of officers are just like you, and I believe you. Here is the rub; You are equating your position as a police officer/judge with the position of being a HOMEOWNER. You see the citizen as an unknown intruder or visitor to YOUR HOME.

We have a political disconnect right here. To me you are NO OWNER. To me you are a hired expert I use to manage MY home. When I hire an Arborist for instance, I am ALLOWING him to be "in charge" of my trees. If my butler is a good one, and he maintains the control of MY home the way I like, then I should even suffer him to slap my feet off of the Queen Ann coffee table. He can tell me to leave my muddy boots in the hall, because That's what I hired him for.

I must say that I am surprised that you have sat back, re grouped and tried to explain AGAIN, instead of for instance posting a photograph of Jack Nicholson. (ingeniously funny retort even if unhelpful) I respect your patience and willingness to discuss. I do recognize what you are saying. There is a certain decorum necessary for society to function. What I am not willing to recognize is the tyrannic view that the .gov is the "OWNER" of this Republic. I have perceived a slow slide toward tyranny for some time. That is what made me ask about the drawn guns thing in the beginning.

What I am going to do is this, I am going to put this down and walk away from it. You carry yourself well. You are patient and concerned. You are involved and steadfast in your resolve. You look like a very good officer. It's what seems to be your politics that scares the hell out of me. You sir are a MANAGER. You, at least in your OFFICIAL capacity are no OWNER.

Our differences I suppose should be reserved for the voting booth.

the model of what you want and what you expect?? well sorry to state the obvious, but you have no control over another persons actions or life. Idk why you are getting so upset on how an officer handles his traffic stops, why don't you step back a minute, and take a walk in his shoes. You are a good cop, upholding the law in the proper ways. At 1am, there is a vehicle driving away from the scene of say... an armed robbery... You have no description yet of the vehicle used to escape. There is only 1 vehicle leaving the direction of where the crime occured.

How would you handle it since you are such an expert on how the police interaction should be.

My guess is you either 1, chicken out and let the car go by and act as if you didn't see it. Or 2, get yourself killed because you are worried about how passerby may catch a glimpse of your firearm held out of sight of the suspect.

 

[X piller X]

And ultimately you have no say in what this officer did, whether you believe it was right or wrong. You were in no way associated with this traffic stop. And you can not determine whether or not the officer should have proceeded the way he did. You are not in control of his life, nor the value of his life.

The fact that you were gawking at the traffic stop, then drove back past a couple minutes later looking for the stop just makes it appear as if you were the one looking for trouble (or something to complain about)

 

[abraham743]

I believe not far from that area in past years there has been a LEO shot during a" routine" traffic stop. If in fact the driver had no way of knowing the LEO had his gun drawn as you stated in op then he wasnt escalating anything. If the officers was behind his leg he had not drawn down on anyone. I would suggest that when you are "drawn down on" you will be seeing the hole in the end of the gun. I have encountered situations that made me put my hand on my gun whole pocket carrying. It didnt make afraid it meant i was aware of a potentially dangerous situaution

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

zzzzzzz

 

[sj kahr k40]

.

 

[T755]

Put the tin foil away. You cannot "give a bucket load of questionable shootings in indianapolis".

 

[VUPDblue]

Put the tin foil away. You cannot "give a bucket load of questionable shootings in indianapolis".

Or any?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The discussion has migrated far beyond the simple original question.

You know why? Because you kept throwing everything you could think of at the wall to see if anything would stick, ever widening the argument. That somehow a cop in the narcotics trade in the 90s is relevant to a cop having a handgun out and hidden on a traffic stop, etc. etc. You refuse to engage most of my arguments because you know you are wrong and you simply can't. You cycle through name calling, assigning negative motives to me, etc, but even now you can't dispute a single one of the arguments I've put forward about how the cop is not a threat to you.

Now we're back to the possibility of an ND, yet, still, you can't address how a gun pointed down at the officer's leg is a threat to YOU. If you're still threatened by the non-threat of lack of intimidation and and officer's increased risk to his own calf, do you still think the best play is to refuse to stop or to have your own gun under your thigh or some other 'be at the ready' to 'defend yourself'? That a uniformed cop on a traffic stop should be viewed the same as "some random yahoo", completely ignoring the context?

 

[ghitch75]

i meet them in my drive like that....they never get to the front door.....