LTCH is shown when a LEO runs your DL

[Denny347]

Traffic stops traffic stops traffic stops...I'd say 80% of our driver's licenses we run have NOTHING to do with a traffic stop. I run them all the time for suspect information. Lady says baby daddy came over a hit her. I run his information to confirm it for the report and BOOM a LTCH pops up. Now I have a suspect wanted for Domestic Battery and likely armed. I do it with all sorts of suspects in crimes. I do it when I respond to disturbances and domestics. I do it for suspects caught during crimes in progress. I am glad to see just how many people know what I do during the course of my workday.

 

[GBuck]

Traffic stops traffic stops traffic stops...I'd say 80% of our driver's licenses we run have NOTHING to do with a traffic stop. I run them all the time for suspect information. Lady says baby daddy came over a hit her. I run his information to confirm it for the report and BOOM a LTCH pops up. Now I have a suspect wanted for Domestic Battery and likely armed. I do it with all sorts of suspects in crimes. I do it when I respond to disturbances and domestics. I do it for suspects caught during crimes in progress. I am glad to see just how many people know what I do during the course of my workday.

No one is telling you what you do in your workday. The whole argument was started because a "dispatcher" was talking about traffic stops.

 

[GBuck]

And seriously, why this day and age wouldn't you assume EVERYONE is armed? I know I do.

 

[Hawkeye]

Vitaminck:

"BRRRIIING LTCH ok now you know he has a gun and that's your main focus."

You keep saying this, and it's been pointed out that you are wrong. I'll try it again. This time in caps. Maybe it will get through to you.

HAVING A LTCH HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON WHETHER THE LTCH HOLDER HAS A FIREARM OF ANY SORT ON OR WITH THEM AT ANY POINT. IT IS IRRELEVANT.

FURTHER, THE LACK OF HAVING A LTCH DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE PERSON DOES notHAVE A FIREARM OR OTHER WEAPON ON THEM AT ANY POINT. IT IS IRRELEVANT.

IT IS IRRELEVANT.

Caps off now. I really hope you think about this.

Let's say an officer runs plates at a "routine" TS. No flag. Officer approaches car. Gets license, registration, proof of insurance. Runs that and all is in order, or appears to be. Walks back to the car to return docs and say "have a good day, be on your way."

But, wait the thug, baby gang banger has a stolen hand cannon and just committed an act of mass murder and mayhem down the street - but nobody knows that yet. But thug baby gang banger doesn't know that and he's sure not going to let this cop haul him off in bracelets. BANG, BANG! Officer down.

But the driver had no LTCH. And the officer was happy because no LTCH came back on the plates or DL. But, of course, since there was no LTCH there was no threat, real or perceived, to officer safety. Right?

Presence of, or lack of, a LTCH is irrelevant. It's a data point, but it is extraneous. See Kut14's post above. I think he's a Carmel PD officer, and that's his opinion too. A bad guy probably won't have a LTCH but may be packing. A good guy may have one an may (in my case, almost never carry) not have any firearm, hand or long, in the vehicle. The flag you are seemingly so enamored of will likely cause more officers to treat me, an unarmed, law abiding good guy as a highr threat risk, than the unlicensed bad guy who has five handguns on or in his vehicle along with a sawed off shotgun, illegally modified-to-full-auto AK47, two homemade suppressor, three hand grenades an two pipe bombs (all of which are concealed from the officer's sight). Makes total sense to me. Treat the law-abiding as a threat, and the criminal - he's ok because the is no flag. (a flag that indicates that I FOLLOW THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Do you not get it?????

 

[VERT]

HAVING A LTCH HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON WHETHER THE LTCH HOLDER HAS A FIREARM OF ANY SORT ON OR WITH THEM AT ANY POINT. IT IS IRRELEVANT.

FURTHER, THE LACK OF HAVING A LTCH DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE PERSON DOES NOT HAVE A FIREARM OR OTHER WEAPON ON THEM AT ANY POINT. IT IS IRRELEVANT.

IT IS IRRELEVANT.

Pretty much sums it up. I have no problem with LEOs knowing about my LTCH. I just don't want them to make unfair assumptions. I say this because of concern for their safety as well as how it might affect public perception.

 

[VERT]

Traffic stops traffic stops traffic stops...I'd say 80% of our driver's licenses we run have NOTHING to do with a traffic stop. I run them all the time for suspect information. Lady says baby daddy came over a hit her. I run his information to confirm it for the report and BOOM a LTCH pops up. Now I have a suspect wanted for Domestic Battery and likely armed. I do it with all sorts of suspects in crimes. I do it when I respond to disturbances and domestics. I do it for suspects caught during crimes in progress. I am glad to see just how many people know what I do during the course of my workday.

Something about what Denny shared really struck home with me. Took me a minute, but it is similar to what I see with my friends. They deal with a disproportional amount of bad people doing silly things. Sometimes my LEO friends need a reminder that not everyone is beating momma and sneaking drugs in their underwear. Sometims they speak of LTCH holders with contempt. Who can blame them? I say this because they are in a position where they see less then responsible people with guns.

Keep in mind that the only interaction that most of us have with law enforcement is the possibility of a traffic stop. The very thought of being arrested or even committing a crime is simply not in our minds. And by most I actually mean most! I truely believe that 99% of all people have good intentions, and this is true of all professions (LEO, clergy, mechanic, doctor, farmer). It is just that police tend to interact with the one percent more often then the rest of us, and when one bad cop gets caught the story is all over the news and internet. Doesn't do much for the us vs them mentality.

Edit: just wanted to emphasize I am not being critcal of Denny or any of our other LEO friends. I want to thank them for sharing the activities of their day.

 

[CathyInBlue]

If you hear any supercops ragging on LTCHers, just ask them, "During a rampage shooting/active shooter incident, how many people die, on average, before the subject is stopped by a LEO?"

"Duh, we dunno. None, cuz we're so super."

"Wrong. 14.3 for all incidents in the last 60+ years. 14.3 people die before the police terminate active shooter incidents. Now, during the same type of incidents, how many people have to die, on average, before the subject is stopped by a non-LEO, like an LTCH holder or other?"

"Lots `n' lots."

"Wrong. 2.3. When some whacko, nut job, lunatic gets a gun and goes on a shooting spree, over 6 times more people die on average when everyone waits for the police to do something versus when someone just confronts the shooter and ends the spree. When a proactive non-LEO is on-scene to stop a crazed gunman, they are only able to kill 2.3 people on average before they are stopped without a LEO in sight... Sleep tight, boys."

 

[Denny347]

Something about what Denny shared really struck home with me. Took me a minute, but it is similar to what I see with my friends. They deal with a disproportional amount of bad people doing silly things. Sometimes my LEO friends need a reminder that not everyone is beating momma and sneaking drugs in their underwear. Sometims they speak of LTCH holders with contempt. Who can blame them? I say this because they are in a position where they see less then responsible people with guns.

Keep in mind that the only interaction that most of us have with law enforcement is the possibility of a traffic stop. The very thought of being arrested or even committing a crime is simply not in our minds. And by most I actually mean most! I truely believe that 99% of all people have good intentions, and this is true of all professions (LEO, clergy, mechanic, doctor, farmer). It is just that police tend to interact with the one percent more often then the rest of us, and when one bad cop gets caught the story is all over the news and internet. Doesn't do much for the us vs them mentality.

Edit: just wanted to emphasize I am not being critcal of Denny or any of our other LEO friends. I want to thank them for sharing the activities of their day.

Very good insight. I guess you are correct. It is hard to imagine without immersing yourself into it daily. I came from a small department to Indy and still no where near prepared for it. Had no idea the kinds of things people do and how they live. I swim in it every day and sometimes it is hard to pull your self out. I have a hard time trying to explain it to people who are "looking in from the outside". I don't even try explaining it to my family. It gives you a VERY cynical outlook that is nearly impossible to shake.

 

[Denny347]

If you hear any supercops ragging on LTCHers, just ask them, "During a rampage shooting/active shooter incident, how many people die, on average, before the subject is stopped by a LEO?"

"Duh, we dunno. None, cuz we're so super."

"Wrong. 14.3 for all incidents in the last 60+ years. 14.3 people die before the police terminate active shooter incidents. Now, during the same type of incidents, how many people have to die, on average, before the subject is stopped by a non-LEO, like an LTCH holder or other?"

"Lots `n' lots."

"Wrong. 2.3. When some whacko, nut job, lunatic gets a gun and goes on a shooting spree, over 6 times more people die on average when everyone waits for the police to do something versus when someone just confronts the shooter and ends the spree. When a proactive non-LEO is on-scene to stop a crazed gunman, they are only able to kill 2.3 people on average before they are stopped without a LEO in sight... Sleep tight, boys."

I don't think anyone here is saying people shouldn't carry or anything like that. We (LEO's) are not on here crapping on LTCH holders. Let's not make it an "us vs. them" argument.

 

[VERT]

Very good insight. I guess you are correct. It is hard to imagine without immersing yourself into it daily. I came from a small department to Indy and still no where near prepared for it. Had no idea the kinds of things people do and how they live. I swim in it every day and sometimes it is hard to pull your self out. I have a hard time trying to explain it to people who are "looking in from the outside". I don't even try explaining it to my family. It gives you a VERY cynical outlook that is nearly impossible to shake.

Exactly! Then we as people tend to complicate it be associating with other people with similar experiences. For instance you might "hang out" with your buddies from work. I know I do, which probably why I have a cynical outlook towards those things I am involved with in my job.

 

[vitamink]

Vitaminck:

"BRRRIIING LTCH ok now you know he has a gun and that's your main focus."

You keep saying this, and it's been pointed out that you are wrong. I'll try it again. This time in caps. Maybe it will get through to you.

HAVING A LTCH HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON WHETHER THE LTCH HOLDER HAS A FIREARM OF ANY SORT ON OR WITH THEM AT ANY POINT. IT IS IRRELEVANT.

FURTHER, THE LACK OF HAVING A LTCH DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE PERSON DOES notHAVE A FIREARM OR OTHER WEAPON ON THEM AT ANY POINT. IT IS IRRELEVANT.

IT IS IRRELEVANT.

Caps off now. I really hope you think about this.

Let's say an officer runs plates at a "routine" TS. No flag. Officer approaches car. Gets license, registration, proof of insurance. Runs that and all is in order, or appears to be. Walks back to the car to return docs and say "have a good day, be on your way."

But, wait the thug, baby gang banger has a stolen hand cannon and just committed an act of mass murder and mayhem down the street - but nobody knows that yet. But thug baby gang banger doesn't know that and he's sure not going to let this cop haul him off in bracelets. BANG, BANG! Officer down.

But the driver had no LTCH. And the officer was happy because no LTCH came back on the plates or DL. But, of course, since there was no LTCH there was no threat, real or perceived, to officer safety. Right?

Presence of, or lack of, a LTCH is irrelevant. It's a data point, but it is extraneous. See Kut14's post above. I think he's a Carmel PD officer, and that's his opinion too. A bad guy probably won't have a LTCH but may be packing. A good guy may have one an may (in my case, almost never carry) not have any firearm, hand or long, in the vehicle. The flag you are seemingly so enamored of will likely cause more officers to treat me, an unarmed, law abiding good guy as a highr threat risk, than the unlicensed bad guy who has five handguns on or in his vehicle along with a sawed off shotgun, illegally modified-to-full-auto AK47, two homemade suppressor, three hand grenades an two pipe bombs (all of which are concealed from the officer's sight). Makes total sense to me. Treat the law-abiding as a threat, and the criminal - he's ok because the is no flag. (a flag that indicates that I FOLLOW THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Do you not get it?????

I agree with you!

what do you not get?

Yes cops should treat every situation as if the person is armed. I've highlighted that as you assume "i don't get it" even though i've said that in almost every post on here. I want to make sure it stands out and is burned into your retinas..I GET IT. I'm very aware that many of the bad guys don't have LTCH's and the police don't get notification about them. It's unfortunate.

Yes an LTCH doesn't guarantee a gun on the person, but if you don't think that is a good clue that the person is likely armed with a gun then i don't know what to tell you

I have a DL in my wallet. i probably have a car.
I have a motorcycle endorsement. I probably own/have owned a motorcycle.
I have a stamped card from the hair club for men...I'm probably bald under all this horse hair.

Is any of that guaranteed? No. Is it likely?..If you say No, i've lost all faith in in humanity.


Someone posted that cops knowing about a LTCH is completely ridiculous and would not improve officer safety one bit. I disagreed and showed a situation last week as well as several other common situations where it is not. Again, just because you were awesome in 1992 when you got your card doesn't mean you continue to be awesome today (see the child molester story above). Now i don't think it improves it significantly, as i've said before, and AGREE WITH YOU that all people should be assumed as armed. 99% of the time it won't come into play at all. I've listed situations where it would.

 

[vitamink]

It seems like quite a stretch from "this man has a warrant and is going to jail," to "this man and has a warrant and a LTCH, so he has a gun and is likely to kill someone." People are arrested on warrants every day that have guns and never make an attempt to kill someone. You're right, we disagree and we'll just have to leave it at that until legislation changes.

You're not a cop so i wouldn't expect you to understand as you haven't experienced that on a regular basis. A warrant for child molesting is a different than a driving while suspended warrant. As i've said before they either do whatever they can to escape or kill themselves. You'd have to see it to believe it.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I don't think anyone here is saying people shouldn't carry or anything like that. We (LEO's) are not on here crapping on LTCH holders. Let's not make it an "us vs. them" argument.

Do you see the operative word in your sentence? My comment was directed toward VERT's comment about his LEO friends (who presumably are not INGOers) who "sometimes [] speak of LTCH holders with contempt."

My comment can in no way be interpretted as an incitement to go out and proactively find some LEOs to get into a verbal sparring match. It was couched in the language of should one encounter such a situation, regardless of its probability, then here's a possible way to handle such unwarranted bravado.

 

[VERT]

Do you see the operative word in your sentence? My comment was directed toward VERT's comment about his LEO friends (who presumably are not INGOers) who "sometimes speak of LTCH holders with contempt.

My comment can in no way be interpretted as an incitement to go out and proactively find some LEOs to get into a verbal sparring match. It was couched in the language of should one encounter such a situation, regardless of its probability, then here's a possible way to handle such unwarranted bravado.

You are correct. None of my friends post on INGO. Their feeling is that they don't need to waste time on the internet getting bashed. They have enough people that hate them at work. They would much rather surf officer.com or other such site where they can bash non LEOs. Yes folks as surprising as it is, it works both ways.

Back to the original topic. I don't have a problem with LEOs having my LTCH information. I don't think 99% of LEOs will abuse the information. Bad cops and bad LTCH holders do exist. I don't think having this information will increase officer safety. I do worry about people in general making assumptions.

 

[Hawkeye]

If you hear any supercops ragging on LTCHers, just ask them, "During a rampage shooting/active shooter incident, how many people die, on average, before the subject is stopped by a LEO?"

"Duh, we dunno. None, cuz we're so super."

"Wrong. 14.3 for all incidents in the last 60+ years. 14.3 people die before the police terminate active shooter incidents. Now, during the same type of incidents, how many people have to die, on average, before the subject is stopped by a non-LEO, like an LTCH holder or other?"

"Lots `n' lots."

"Wrong. 2.3. When some whacko, nut job, lunatic gets a gun and goes on a shooting spree, over 6 times more people die on average when everyone waits for the police to do something versus when someone just confronts the shooter and ends the spree. When a proactive non-LEO is on-scene to stop a crazed gunman, they are only able to kill 2.3 people on average before they are stopped without a LEO in sight... Sleep tight, boys."

You've been reading that other thread, right, Kathy?

 

[Hawkeye]

I agree with you!

what do you not get?

Yes cops should treat every situation as if the person is armed. I've highlighted that as you assume "i don't get it" even though i've said that in almost every post on here. I want to make sure it stands out and is burned into your retinas..I GET IT. I'm very aware that many of the bad guys don't have LTCH's and the police don't get notification about them. It's unfortunate.

Yes an LTCH doesn't guarantee a gun on the person, but if you don't think that is a good clue that the person is likely armed with a gun then i don't know what to tell you

I have a DL in my wallet. i probably have a car.
I have a motorcycle endorsement. I probably own/have owned a motorcycle.
I have a stamped card from the hair club for men...I'm probably bald under all this horse hair.

Is any of that guaranteed? No. Is it likely?..If you say No, i've lost all faith in in humanity.


Someone posted that cops knowing about a LTCH is completely ridiculous and would not improve officer safety one bit. I disagreed and showed a situation last week as well as several other common situations where it is not. Again, just because you were awesome in 1992 when you got your card doesn't mean you continue to be awesome today (see the child molester story above). Now i don't think it improves it significantly, as i've said before, and AGREE WITH YOU that all people should be assumed as armed. 99% of the time it won't come into play at all. I've listed situations where it would.

No, you don't get it, as the rest of your post indicates. It's really a shame that, assuming you are, in fact a police officer, that you have walled yourself off prom the citizens and populace you may have sworn to serve and protect.

 

[CathyInBlue]

At any one time, there are LOTS of threads ongoing on INGO. I only follow a few of the sub-forums. The likelihood that I'm following some anonymous thread or other is incredibly miniscule.

Care to link to the thread? Cite the thread's subject line?

 

[Hawkeye]

At any one time, there are LOTS of threads ongoing on INGO. I only follow a few of the sub-forums. The likelihood that I'm following some anonymous thread or other is incredibly miniscule.

Care to link to the thread? Cite the thread's subject line?

Sure, ask and ye shall receive:

"Interesting Study about Shootings (Police stoppage vs Joe Blow)"

 

[CathyInBlue]

Ah! Yes. That was what I was citing obliquely.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

If you hear any supercops ragging on LTCHers, just ask them, "During a rampage shooting/active shooter incident, how many people die, on average, before the subject is stopped by a LEO?"

"Duh, we dunno. None, cuz we're so super."

"Wrong. 14.3 for all incidents in the last 60+ years. 14.3 people die before the police terminate active shooter incidents. Now, during the same type of incidents, how many people have to die, on average, before the subject is stopped by a non-LEO, like an LTCH holder or other?"

"Lots `n' lots."

"Wrong. 2.3. When some whacko, nut job, lunatic gets a gun and goes on a shooting spree, over 6 times more people die on average when everyone waits for the police to do something versus when someone just confronts the shooter and ends the spree. When a proactive non-LEO is on-scene to stop a crazed gunman, they are only able to kill 2.3 people on average before they are stopped without a LEO in sight... Sleep tight, boys."

So where were the LTCH holders when Jared Loughner and James Holmes were taking care of business?