Staff study on interactions between police and legally armed citizens

[wolfman]

I think a good question would be something along the lines of: "Without doing any research, please answer the following"
1. What is your understanding of the legal method(s) of carrying a handgun that is allowed when a person possess a LTCH.
2. Have you ever called for backup, solely because during the first contact during a traffic stop, the driver informed that he was armed, and possessed a valid LTCH.
3. If the answer to #2 is yes, provide the thought process that lead you to that action.
4. Do you think the average person should be allowed to carry a handgun? Explain why or why not.
5. If you have ever removed an LTCH holder from their car during a traffic stop, did you also remove their spouse from the car, or leave them inside in the passenger seat.
6. Explain why you treated the spouse/significant other in the manner you did, if it was different from the way you treated the driver.
7. If you left the spouse/significant other of an LTCH holder in the car, did you consider that they too may have a LTCH and be armed.

will edit with more as I think of them.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I think a good question would be something along the lines of: "Without doing any research, please answer the following"
1. What is your understanding of the legal method(s) of carrying a handgun that is allowed when a person possess a LTCH.
2. Have you ever called for backup, solely because during the first contact during a traffic stop, the driver informed that he was armed, and possessed a valid LTCH.
3. If the answer to #2 is yes, provide the thought process that lead you to that action.
4. Do you think the average person should be allowed to carry a handgun? Explain why or why not.
5. If you have ever removed an LTCH holder from their car during a traffic stop, did you also remove their spouse from the car, or leave them inside in the passenger seat.
6. Explain why you treated the spouse/significant other in the manner you did, if it was different from the way you treated the driver.
7. If you left the spouse/significant other of an LTCH holder in the car, did you consider that they too may have a LTCH and be armed.

will edit with more as I think of them.

Unfortunately I have to ask more "yes or no" and "pick the most appropriate answer" questions. If I were to send out a survey that required detailed responses I doubt I would get much feedback from them.

 

[wolfman]

I understand that, but you might be able to use the base ideas for my questions, to formulate some that would work in your survey.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I understand that, but you might be able to use the base ideas for my questions, to formulate some that would work in your survey.

Already working on it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If anyone has suggestions of survey questions that should be asked to police officers concerning their thoughts and practices when it comes to interacting with legally armed citizens, feel free to post them. Please keep them serious, and related to the topic.

How do you establish the balance between not risking your own safety and not treating gun owners, the majority of whom are upstanding citizens, like criminals? This question applies both in practical and political terms when considering that upright citizens may well resent the presumption that they are dangerous.

 

[88GT]

If anyone has suggestions of survey questions that should be asked to police officers concerning their thoughts and practices when it comes to interacting with legally armed citizens, feel free to post them. Please keep them serious, and related to the topic.

Unfortunately I have to ask more "yes or no" and "pick the most appropriate answer" questions. If I were to send out a survey that required detailed responses I doubt I would get much feedback from them.

Which of the following best describes your initial reaction upon seeing an individual carrying a firearm in public? Distrust/fear/caution/concern/satisfaction/elation/kindred spirit. [The positive response options could definitely be improved. I am struggling with synonyms that nail down better connotations.]

Do you perceive males who carry to be more/less/no difference of a threat than females who carry? [That one is totally for me to get my question answered. ]

Do you routinely ask about the possession of firearms when interacting with individuals?

Would your threat assessment of an individual change upon learning that he was carrying a firearm?

Do you believe that taking possession of a firearm for the duration of the interaction is a safe practice? [Wording here can be tricky. I could also see using "seizing" or confiscating," but I am willing to bet that doing so would elicit a different answer in a portion of the respondents. To that end, building in redundancy in the questions if you can would be extremely interesting. Small variations in word choice and word order can change the mental image for respondents resulting in different answers to what amounts to the same question. I don't know how in-depth you are taking this though. But the possibilities are fascinating. I would love to see a survey done wherein the survey questions are all identical except for the pronouns. In one survey, all of the pronouns referring to the gun-totin' individuals would be masculine. In the second, all feminine. And in the third, mixed. But that's just the geek in me coming out....along with that desire to know if my theory about women carrying has any merit.]

Do you believe that taking possession of a firearm is necessary to reduce the risk to the officer?

How often do you stop an individual solely because he is carrying a firearm? Always/sometimes/rarely/never

Is open carry legal in Indiana?

Does the Indiana handgun license/permit require an individual to conceal his/her firearm?

How do you respond to MWAG calls after it becomes obvious that there is no threat or criminal behavior taking place?

Overall, do you view individuals who carry firearms in a positive/neutral/negative light?

 

[CathyInBlue]

"If the General Assembly changes a law that directly impacts how you are permitted to enforce the law, do you feel any degree of obligation to seek out and learn these changes in the law on your own, or do you rely solely on what your superiors tell you about how you are permitted to enforce the law independent of the law as passed by the General Assembly?"

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Thinking about what's going on in Connecticut and a hypothetical (for Indiana, anyway):

If Indiana passed a law, similar to Connecticut, where the possession of certain firearms and certain magazines were criminalized; and you were instructed by your leadership to be part of a team to go to a person(s) home and confiscate/remove such weapons from that person, would consider that a lawful, Constitutional order? And would you follow it?

 

[Jackson]

Thinking about what's going on in Connecticut and a hypothetical (for Indiana, anyway):

If Indiana passed a law, similar to Connecticut, where the possession of certain firearms and certain magazines were criminalized; and you were instructed by your leadership to be part of a team to go to a person(s) home and confiscate/remove such weapons from that person, would consider that a lawful, Constitutional order? And would you follow it?

How many would take a survey from their employer and indicate they intend to disregard orders from the management?

 

[VERT]

How many would take a survey from their employer and indicate they intend to disregard orders from the management?

Good point.

Also I am sure Frank will need to be careful with his wording. Survey questions should not be leading. They often are but they are not supposed to be.

 

[shooter521]

Sorry I can not help you. I have never had a poor interaction with law enforcement.

This. Over the years, I've been pulled over while armed 3 times, by 3 different agencies (only one was in Indy). Never been disarmed or had an interaction I would call less than professional. The non-Indy officers (Boone Co. and Worthington) were downright friendly.

 

[the1kidd03]

A lot of thought goes into a well balanced survey to keep it from displaying a bias. Most I see don't, but that is the goal when creating them.

They should also be measureable to some degree such as yes/no, likert scales, etc. Then the results are measureable and much easier to analyze/interpret.

He seems to be on the right track with avoiding questions requiring a detailed, written response. The big question is the end result/goal he's trying to achieve and validate that with the survey. That will determine what questions to ask and how to ask them ultimately.

 

[the1kidd03]

Which of the following best describes your initial reaction upon seeing an individual carrying a firearm in public? Distrust/fear/caution/concern/satisfaction/elation/kindred spirit. [The positive response options could definitely be improved. I am struggling with synonyms that nail down better connotations.] ---------------- Good idea here, but I think asking this question is more of an interpretation to one's emotional feelings towards firearms, and not so much in how they should professionally deal with citizens in possession of them. That's not a bad thing, just pointing out something which may not be so obvious in the interpretation of one's response. If one wanted a response more to the end result of identifying how they treat a citizen who is carrying I might ask a question such as, "Do you feel the open display/carry of a sidearm is reasonable suspicion to detain/question?" A yes/no response could be applied here and while it is an indication of their emotional bias still, it's also measureable to their professionalism and could identify areas of needed additional training.

Do you perceive males who carry to be more/less/no difference of a threat than females who carry? [That one is totally for me to get my question answered. ]--------- LOL

Do you routinely ask about the possession of firearms when interacting with individuals? ------------I would add, "regardless of circumstances as to why you're questioning them?" Otherwise they might make an assumption about the question that can stray from desired results.

Would your threat assessment of an individual change upon learning that he was carrying a firearm? ------------This is going back to the same thing as number one. Their response will display an emotional bias towards or against citizen firearms ownership. That may or may not be helpful to his desired end result. In other words, if they feel the mere presence of a gun is cause of suspicion, then they are ineffectively stereotyping gun ownership with being a criminal. A dangerous (unethical/unprofessional) subconscious thought process for anyone, especially a peace officer.

Do you believe that taking possession of a firearm for the duration of the interaction is a safe practice? [Wording here can be tricky. I could also see using "seizing" or confiscating," but I am willing to bet that doing so would elicit a different answer in a portion of the respondents. To that end, building in redundancy in the questions if you can would be extremely interesting. Small variations in word choice and word order can change the mental image for respondents resulting in different answers to what amounts to the same question. I don't know how in-depth you are taking this though. But the possibilities are fascinating. I would love to see a survey done wherein the survey questions are all identical except for the pronouns. In one survey, all of the pronouns referring to the gun-totin' individuals would be masculine. In the second, all feminine. And in the third, mixed. But that's just the geek in me coming out....along with that desire to know if my theory about women carrying has any merit.] --------I'm curious to hear your theory here? I'm not a woman but conducting research such as this is a big part of my career and I do/have worked with a lot of women in regards to firearms and defense.

Do you believe that taking possession of a firearm is necessary to reduce the risk to the officer? --------------Again, this would be telling of their emotional bias towards firearms. If they feel it reduces risk, then they are associating the mere possession of a gun to being criminal and a threat because a law abiding person with a gun would pose no risk to an officer.

How often do you stop an individual solely because he is carrying a firearm? Always/sometimes/rarely/never ---------------- Good suggestion here. You might add as a follow up question; something regarding to what extent is necessary to determine the person has not criminal intent (ie verifying LTCH, verifying ID to match LTCH, etc.)

Is open carry legal in Indiana? ---------------Good opportunity here to determine officers overall understanding of state firearms law and to potentially identify areas for additional training.

Does the Indiana handgun license/permit require an individual to conceal his/her firearm? ---------------Same as above.

How do you respond to MWAG calls after it becomes obvious that there is no threat or criminal behavior taking place? --------------Sort of open ended question without a yes/no type of answer. No clear point to asking it in this manner. Perhaps alter it to something like, "Do you treat the citizen respectfully and in a friendly manner during an MWAG call before it has been established that they are no threat or showing criminal behavior?" "After?" A response to this would provide a baseline for determining an average of how many officers perceive themselves as being professional, courteous, etc. Of course, for that to make any real difference the department would also then have to have a means of measuring citizen satisfaction in dealing with officers to compare it to and could then potentially identify any areas for improvement or training.

Overall, do you view individuals who carry firearms in a positive/neutral/negative light? ---------Another emotional bias determining question.

Overall very good suggestions here. I'm not intending to critique your responses in my above BOLD responses, but merely giving some further suggestions for Frank to potentially make use of when doing his research; "food for thought" so to speak.

 

[88GT]

Overall very good suggestions here. I'm not intending to critique your responses in my above BOLD responses, but merely giving some further suggestions for Frank to potentially make use of when doing his research; "food for thought" so to speak.

Understood. But I think most of the impetus for the way a LEO reacts/responds to an individual with a gun is rooted in his emotional bias. I have no idea what the scope/specificity of Frank's focus is. So the questions were just in the ball park of issues that arise when an individual exercising his RKBA interacts with LE. I don't know what the point of conducting a survey would be if not to determine what can't be discovered with statistical analysis of already-existing data. And as Frank's post stated, "questions that should be asked to police officers concerning their thoughts and practices when it comes to interacting with legally armed citizens." What's the point of a self-reporting survey of this nature if not to flesh out the LEO's personal views on it?

Regarding the "Do you treat the citizen respectfully and in a friendly manner during a MWAG call....." suggestion: who would answer in the negative? If any question has no clear point, I would think it would be one worded with such an obvious dichotomy between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" responses. I know the question was open-ended, but Frank did ask about practices LE engage in. It doesn't have to be an essay. A sentence or two would suffice. Easy enough to preface the question with "In a sentence or two, describe how you respond to a MWAG....."



Regarding my theory on women carrying: in the absence of an act involving the use of the firearm, and focusing solely on just the act of carrying a firearm (in most cases openly since I operate on the assumption that a concealed firearm would preclude the kind of interaction that I am specifically concerned with), all else being equal, a female is less likely to be approached/bothered/hassled/harassed for carrying than a male would be. This doesn't include traffic stops, but mostly because I think LE is less likely to assume she is armed and therefore less likely to go that direction with the questioning. If the LEO does inquire about firearms in a traffic stop, being female probably will have less influence on his decision to disarm than other factors. But on the issue of just stopping a citizen going about her business in public, I don't think LEO are as likely to stop a female as they are a male.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

How many would take a survey from their employer and indicate they intend to disregard orders from the management?

If the responses are not anonymous, in my experience, you won't necessarily get honest replies.

 

[the1kidd03]

Understood. But I think most of the impetus for the way a LEO reacts/responds to an individual with a gun is rooted in his emotional bias. I have no idea what the scope/specificity of Frank's focus is. So the questions were just in the ball park of issues that arise when an individual exercising his RKBA interacts with LE. I don't know what the point of conducting a survey would be if not to determine what can't be discovered with statistical analysis of already-existing data. And as Frank's post stated, "questions that should be asked to police officers concerning their thoughts and practices when it comes to interacting with legally armed citizens." What's the point of a self-reporting survey of this nature if not to flesh out the LEO's personal views on it? -------------My point was that I don't know (and doubt) they already track sufficient data to make effective use of some of the more emotionally based questions, that's all. There's certainly value to them, but not being intimately familiar with their leadership training and quality management I can't say that they have any further data beyond what he's acquiring. In other words, their personal views provide some insight into their beliefs but that in itself is limited in deciding an appropriate course of action and tracking results of that. ie they may view themselves favorably in interactions. That doesn't really tell you much other than you got the answer you expected (for one to not "incriminate" themselves.) But if you compare that to a general survey of people who've interacted with them and find the two to be polar opposites, then you have a much more clear area to address than arbitrarily going off of opinion/emotional bias from one perspective. In which case, you could devise much more elaborate questioning to discern more specific areas to address in training officers and improve their ability to interact with citizens positively.

Regarding the "Do you treat the citizen respectfully and in a friendly manner during a MWAG call....." suggestion: who would answer in the negative? If any question has no clear point, I would think it would be one worded with such an obvious dichotomy between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" responses. I know the question was open-ended, but Frank did ask about practices LE engage in. It doesn't have to be an essay. A sentence or two would suffice. Easy enough to preface the question with "In a sentence or two, describe how you respond to a MWAG....." ------------- IME, people tend to simply ignore essay questions even if only a sentence, or even a couple words would suffice. You're right in that they would likely answer positively out of self-interest. But if his goal is to justify a need for further training, then comparing that natural response to remarks by citizens (which would almost certainly reflect a more negative opinion overall) will only provide comparative data to further validate his suggestion for training. Again, I was just putting thoughts out there for him to consider while not knowing in full detail his goals, ideas, their reasons for this assignment, etc.



Regarding my theory on women carrying: in the absence of an act involving the use of the firearm, and focusing solely on just the act of carrying a firearm (in most cases openly since I operate on the assumption that a concealed firearm would preclude the kind of interaction that I am specifically concerned with), all else being equal, a female is less likely to be approached/bothered/hassled/harassed for carrying than a male would be. This doesn't include traffic stops, but mostly because I think LE is less likely to assume she is armed and therefore less likely to go that direction with the questioning. If the LEO does inquire about firearms in a traffic stop, being female probably will have less influence on his decision to disarm than other factors. But on the issue of just stopping a citizen going about her business in public, I don't think LEO are as likely to stop a female as they are a male. ----------Based on my experience (and my wife's) I would agree women don't elicit the same response when carrying as men do. Personally, I would accredit this to their natural stereotyping tendency and the fact that female violent criminals are far less likely (or at least less publicized.) I doubt it has much, if anything to do with anything other than that of stereotyping known information.

In BOLD as usual. I'm also commenting under the assumption that a suggestion of additional training or ideas where training could be improved is involved here because, well....quite honestly what other purpose would there be to such an exercise for leadership training of this nature if not to determine areas for improvement. That's what it's about in the corporate world (researching, collecting data, analyzing, and identifying areas for improvement, then developing the most effective means to address those based on that data, and repeating this cycle) so it would only make sense the same principles are being applied to civil service departments such as this. They might simply be putting this project under the "ruse" of leadership training to get people's ideas for improvement, rather than having/hiring professional leadership consultants.