OC at 4-H Fair. -1 Marshall County Reserve Officer

[IndyGlockMan]

I read through most of these pages and keep asking myself what I would do if confronted by an LEO while OC or CC.

If the LEO seemed to not know the law (which was quickly obvious), I think I would have asked for him to call his supervisor. I wonder what he would have said? If you asked, wouldn't he be obligated to call his superior?
If I knew he was violating my rights, then I think I would want to get his superior involved so there was (hopefully) another person with authority to take my side and maybe ask him to stand down. He may have received a re-education right there on the spot and you could have resumed your fun at the fair. Probably wishful thinking...

I can't believe he asked "why are you walking around with a gun"? Is that really a valid question?
Sounds like he didn't know what to say and that's all he could think of.
I might have said "for the same reason you are".

Seems that he should have said something like... "the fair doesn't allow weapons and I have to ask you to leave the property. You are welcome to return with out it." If he had been nice about it, then you may have complied, maybe?
Come to think if it... If people were complaining, he would have had time to call it in and maybe seek advise before confronting you. At least let dispatch know he was planning to confront a man carrying a gun. Right?
I'm not an LEO so I don't know how all this works but it seems he had other options than to act like a jackass and treat you that way.

Comming at this from a little different angle... if an LEO hears a complaint from sheeple/libtards about somebody carrying a gun, can't the LEO re-educate the complainers? "I could ask to see his permit but if he's legit, Sorry folks, he's a legally armed citizen. Please respect his rights."

I guess it's easy to armchair quarter back this - hind sight is 20/20, but we can all learn a lot from this thread.
Very educational. Thank you!

 

[ATM]

Does it matter that I was surprised (again)?

No, because I am not surprised by your surprise.

 

[thebishopp]

Ok, using the OC logic, shouldn't we post signs on our cars and around our houses that read "I have a gun and I'm prepared to use it.", this should reduce the probability of a home invasion or a car jacking?

That's up to you and in fact some people do have such signs up on their property. A common one is "protected by smith & wesson" with a photo of a hand holding a very large revolver pointed at you.

It's the same principle behind people putting up "beware of dog" "protected by" (insert security or alarm company name)".

They are just signs and you could be lying. I know people who put up fake signs (like the ones I mentioned) as a deterrent but don't want to spend the money on an actual alarm system or the upkeep on a dog.

 

[ATM]

Again, isn't it possible that the officer was not educated by his superior that there had been a change in the law, and may not have been puposely abusing his power?

Most of the "laws" he was making up and referencing have never been laws at all. They had nothing to do with the recent change.

 

[686 Shooter]

Surprise is not a defensive tactic or advantage - it is an offensive tactic and advantage.

Most who throw it out there as a primary reason to conceal do so without thought. When they try to defend that thought, it's almost always with a very narrowly tailored hypothetical scenario which depicts the "defender" as a mere bystander who gets to capitalize on some oversight of the criminal as he deals with the actual victim.
The "concealed bystander" defender then transitions into the role of aggressor against the criminal and gets to use the "element of surprise" as the offensive tactic and advantage that it is against the fool criminal who underestimated him on the sidelines.

I guess if that's how you think most crimes are going to happen, then it's a valid reason for you. Just make sure you consider all likely crimes and you being the selected victim before you give the notion undue weight.

Bottom line is we have one common goal, to protect ourselves and our family the best way we know how. I hope none of us ever has to find out if OC or CC is the best. (I can tell you this for sure, OC vs CC will never be settled on INGO.)

 

[rhino]

No, because I am not surprised by your surprise.

That's not surprising in the least.

Which surprises me a little (that I was not surprised).

 

[686 Shooter]

Surprise is not a defensive tactic or advantage - it is an offensive tactic and advantage.

Most who throw it out there as a primary reason to conceal do so without thought. When they try to defend that thought, it's almost always with a very narrowly tailored hypothetical scenario which depicts the "defender" as a mere bystander who gets to capitalize on some oversight of the criminal as he deals with the actual victim.
The "concealed bystander" defender then transitions into the role of aggressor against the criminal and gets to use the "element of surprise" as the offensive tactic and advantage that it is against the fool criminal who underestimated him on the sidelines.

I guess if that's how you think most crimes are going to happen, then it's a valid reason for you. Just make sure you consider all likely crimes and you being the selected victim before you give the notion undue weight.

And this is not always a true statement, if you are looking at defending your own life and not trying to stop the crime, it very well could be considered a "defensive tactic".

 

[thebishopp]

Surprise is not a defensive tactic or advantage - it is an offensive tactic and advantage.

Gotta nitpick on this :-) Surprise IS a defensive tactic and CAN be an advantage. The problem is this assumes that certain actions will be taken by the aggressor in order for you to be able to deploy that "surprise".

That is the weakness of relying on "surprise" as a defensive tactic in situations that are more fluid (that can rapidly change).

In order for it to be effective either the aggressor needs to act in a predetermined way or you, as the defender, need to be able to manipulate or control the situation in such a way as to cause the aggressor to act in a certain way.

Much like an Ambush, actually it is an ambush because that is exactly what one is doing when applying "surprise" as a defensive tactic. Very effective if done correctly, however if the enemy doesn't walk down that path then you are screwed.

Now if you are in a situation where you are in, let's say a fortified position, then you can do things like put up obstacles to direct your opponent to attack you from specific paths and directions. In those cases you can set up effective "surprises" to hinder, harass, or defeat your opponent. You can do this because the situation allows you more control in how your opponent attacks you.

Of course if your opponent chooses a path you are not prepared for then you may be screwed, at the very least your "surprises" will no longer be effective.

Now in the scenario of the "encounter with a criminal on the street" the tactic of "surprise" is not necessarily a good one for various reasons. The main one being that you have just been taken by "surprise" (in this case used by the aggressor) and now must "react". You have been "ambushed" and are now at a disadvantage. Unless your "surprise" is that you are bulletproof, or have trained snipers on the rooftops overlooking your position, you are in a very bad spot.

From this reactionary position it is much more difficult to manipulate the actions of the aggressor as they can respond in quite a few different ways and have initial control over the encounter. You only have ONE "surprise" set up (your concealed weapon) which you must find a way to deploy without being shot first.

It's the reason why a good "ambush" is so effective.

The point of OCing is to prevent yourself from being in this particular reactionary position (the ambush) as it has already been proven that most criminals will choose a "soft" target over a "hard" target.

 

[Roadie]

Yes the evidence is definitely in favor that a criminal will choose what he believes to be a "soft" target versus a "hard" target.

Is this always the case. Obviously not as there are exceptions to the rule.

The problem for some of us I believe (those that keep insisting CC is the better choice because a criminal will shoot everyone with a gun first) is that we are looking at it from a military/leo/tactical standpoint. We have already determined that our objective is the crime and as such we are looking at how we will accomplish that mission. The possibility of changing from a "hard" to "soft" target isn't being considered.

In the case of the average criminal they just do not think like that - that is fact. Again I am not saying this is 100 percent and you may run into the small percentage of criminal who is different.

What people need to be aware of is the risk for EITHER method of carry as well as being trained to deploy from both positions (among other things like situational awareness).

It's like those "self defense" instructors who would go around telling people that if they saw a person holding a knife a certain way then you could tell if they could really use a blade or not. Utter nonsense and ironically it was those "instructors" who were saying that, that didn't know what they were talking about. Taking a stance on either end of the spectrum is fallacy and tactically unsound.

Now as far as OC goes. I will say that if more people did it the better off it would be for everyone. Both "socially acceptable" wise as well as "crime deterrent" wise.

When you CC there is still the possibility that the criminal will "take a chance" thinking you were unarmed.

If a criminal walks into a business or even just down the street where dang near every where he looks he sees someone OCing he will, in all likelihood, reconsider what he may be planning on doing. After all it is highly unlikely that he is going to get away with a crime when there are dozens of people around him all "packing" visibly.

Well said, Rep inbound

 

[Roadie]

Ok, using the OC logic, shouldn't we post signs on our cars and around our houses that read "I have a gun and I'm prepared to use it.", this should reduce the probability of a home invasion or a car jacking?

You don't think this sign or sticker would make a Criminal think twice?

...as opposed to this one, of course

 

[ATM]

Gotta nitpick on this :-) ...

I realize it is nitpickable, but only slightly. The generality of its truth refutes the generality of the common defensive surprise myths.

I've also debated that an ambush is not actually a defensive ploy at all; it is still an offensive ruse, much like the feigned retreat set-up to a counterattack.

 

[lashicoN]

Me, I don't carry open. My reason... if a purp sees me carrying a gun... I become the first target to shoot!

Warning! Unoriginal thought! Seriously though, did you just graduate from the academy or something? Or do you have a first or secondhand story of an OCer getting shot first, due to the fact that he was OCing? I've never read anything like that before.

It's wonderful to teach the next generation our rights and it is wonderful that they can learn at such a young age, but it is unfortunate that the people that we were taught to respect as children ourselves, now have to be the bad guy in the example that we set.

Along with teaching children what their and our rights are, we should be teaching them that respect is not something to be given out to those who demand it. Respect should be reserved for righteous people who earn respect from fellow man. Good manners and respect are not the same thing. By the way, I do have respect for law enforcers who can view and interact with the worst people and still act like a well-mannered professional during a routine interaction with the general public. These individuals are an endangered species among the LEO community, in my opinion, of course.

Secondly, most of the time, "we" aren't the ones setting the example, as is the case in the original story. The reserve officer set the example. The reserve officer turned himself into the bad guy. The reserve officer is the only one to blame for his ignorance of the law. The free citizen carrying a means to defend his family while out among the public is certainly not setting a negative example. He certainly didn't control the reserve officer's attitude and turn him into the bad guy. And the OP certainly isn't at fault for the reserve officer not knowing the law. In fact, thanks to the OP, perhaps now the reserve officer has been taught the law.

Again, isn't it possible that the officer was not educated by his superior...

He very well may have been a prick, but he also may not had been instructed as he should have been.

Can I use this as an excuse too? "I was speeding? What's that? No one ever taught me not to speed. I guess I shouldn't be punished for my complete ignorance."

 

[thebishopp]

I realize it is nitpickable, but only slightly. The generality of its truth refutes the generality of the common defensive surprise myths.

I've also debated that an ambush is not actually a defensive ploy at all; it is still an offensive ruse, much like the feigned retreat set-up to a counterattack.

Looked at in that way I would agree.

 

[ryknoll3]

An unfortunate incident. Thankfully you were tactful and well knowledged in Indiana law. Me, I don't carry open. My reason... if a purp sees me carrying a gun... I become the first target to shoot!

Is "a purp" slang for a Minnesota Viking or something?

 

[thebishopp]

Again, isn't it possible that the officer was not educated by his superior that there had been a change in the law, and may not have been puposely abusing his power? He very well may have been a prick, but he also may not had been instructed as he should have been.

An officer has the ability, and I would say responsibility, to do his "due diligence" as it pertains to his job. That includes being up to date on as much relevant data he can obtain. This would include knowing the laws to the best of his ability.

When I was a cop I used to subscribe to a service that would send me monthly updates on relevant court rulings and cases going on in the U.S. Both from the Supreme Court as well as possibly precedent setting state court case. It is not that expensive and really the department should spring for it but we all know how that is.

The service I used also put out a nice little pocket manual: "The Law Officer's Pocket Manual".

The company is BNA - The Bureau of National Affairs, inc out of Washington DC. If you are a current LEO or just interested in what's going on out there I would recommend it.

Also I would recommend a book called "The Rights of Law Enforcement Officers" By will Atchison. I bought it back when it was a "2nd" edition, I believe it is up to the "6th edition" now. It's not about the criminal law per se but a good book for an LEO to read and have.

Calibre press is also an excellent source of info and I liked it so much I bought the street survival books right out of the academy.

Here is a link to BNA's pocket manual: http://www.bna.com/law-officers-pocket-p11810/

I can't find their court update products, if you call them they may be able to help, if they still have that service.

Here is a link to Calibre Press: http://www.calibrepress.com/

While many officers may know about Calibre Press, they probably do not know about BNA. I only knew because my father was a retired officer and he gave me his old pocket manual when I graduated from the Academy.

 

[POC]

I OC'd at the fair tonight. The only person who said anything was my sister. It went something like this:
"My goodness Brother, are you expecting trouble?"
"Always."
"Huh?"
"Always expect trouble and you won't be surprised if it happens."
"Oh, well, I'd just never seen you carry a gun."
"Really? I always carry, usually IWB."
"Oh, I guess I just hadn't seen it before."

And that was about it....

 

[jeremy]

I OC'd at the fair tonight. The only person who said anything was my sister. It went something like this:
"My goodness Brother, are you expecting trouble?"
"Always."
"Huh?"
"Always expect trouble and you won't be surprised if it happens."
"Oh, well, I'd just never seen you carry a gun."
"Really? I always carry, usually IWB."
"Oh, I guess I just hadn't seen it before."

And that was about it....

Huh...

I did not realize you were from Kentucky....

 

[Indy317]

If the LEO seemed to not know the law (which was quickly obvious), I think I would have asked for him to call his supervisor. I wonder what he would have said? If you asked, wouldn't he be obligated to call his superior?

No law that I know of that says an LEO must contact a supervisor to come to the scene upon request. However, most upper administration would expect a first line road supervisor to respond to a scene so long as they weren't on something of greater importance.

I can't believe he asked "why are you walking around with a gun"? Is that really a valid question?
Sounds like he didn't know what to say and that's all he could think of.
I might have said "for the same reason you are"

I think there is nothing wrong with that question. There is no "Constitutional carry" in Indiana. So most LEOs are at least going to go and speak with the person. Asking the question may provide answers to the original complainant. If I was an LEO working the event, I would just like to know if there is a possibility of a special consideration at the event I'm working at. "I carry for personal protection." is different than "Well, my wife here, we just found out her ex just go out of the county jail. His family is big into 4H, and the reason he went to jail was due to a brutal attack on my wife, so I decided that maybe if we ran into him and he saw off the bat I was armed, that he wouldn't try to instigate any trouble." The question is valid, a simple response of "For protection" should suffice. I guess if one wants to look silly, they could give a silly, witty response.

 

[rhino]

I realize it is nitpickable, but only slightly. The generality of its truth refutes the generality of the common defensive surprise myths.

I've also debated that an ambush is not actually a defensive ploy at all; it is still an offensive ruse, much like the feigned retreat set-up to a counterattack.

And . . . even if you are that apocryphal bystander who can "surprise" a badguy in the midst of his wrongdoing, you're still reacting to someone else's initiative.

Either way, the "element of surprise" is among the weakest of the anti-open carry arguments.

 

[iChokePeople]

Sometimes I think we spend too much time asking the wrong question. We beat the dry withered carcass of "Why open carry?" when maybe the better question is, "Why conceal?"

Note: Full disclosure, I conceal. My reason? I'm not good at 'suffering fools'. I don't want to answer questions, I don't want to interact with strangers, I don't want to create a situation where I make all of you, by extension, look like anti-social pricks just because *I* am, so all gun owners must be. I don't want to be a 2a ambassador.