Surrounded by cops today

[jsgolfman]

No, there's nothing about repairing a light that gives rise to probable cause. The probable cause came when someone called 911 reporting a burglery in progress. The probable cause continued when the officer arrived and found someone on a ladder in a position described by the caller. It diminished when the officer discussed the situation with the suspect, and was extinguished when it was established that the person on the ladder was simply working on the building and that in fact no crime had been committed. Everything about the possession of an LTCH and a gun is irrelevent except to the extent that the suspect would have been under arrest until the facts of the situation established and resolved.

The OP handled everything correctly. He was under investigation for a reported felony. He cooperated. He identified himself. He handed over his weapon. He sat quietly and calmly while the officers investigated. Had he failed to provide identification he could have been charged with a Class C Misdemeanor for failing to ID. Had he gotten load and beligerent he coupld have been charged with Disorderly Conduct. If he had told them he was armed and wasn't giving up his gun after refusing to identify himself he could have been sprayed, tazed or shot. And for what end? To say that he was not giving up his rights? To what? Keep a loaded gun while being investigated for the commission of a felony? No such right exists.

This situation had nothing to do with a friggin gun! It was a police call that was responded to and resolved. I don't get what is so hard to understand about that?

You are assuming facts not in evidence. As far as anyone here knows, there was no "position" described by the caller. Also, since the officers obviously went into the store, as they had to open the door, they knew there was no burglary in progress since they would have spoken to the caller on their way through the store. Furthermore, had the officer thought for even a second that the OP was the burglar in question, is there any doubt he would be prone with a knee on his back and Glocks pointed at him from all directions? The officer knew from the start the OP was not robbing the store.
Based on the OP, they "discussed" very little with him other than asking for ID, asking if he knew what store this was and if he was armed. However, up until that point I find nothing oppressive about the situation. At this point, though, things take a decidedly nasty turn. Had they actually been investigating him about the burglary, I would assume they would ask him questions pertaining to the felony. Did they? According to the OP, no. So, he wasn't being investigated for a felony, they were running his ID and LTCH. Obviously, he was "clean" (we can assume this as he isn't in jail), so treat him like a felon?

 

[E5RANGER375]

Common problem for ex military. It has less to do with a lack of respect than it does a basic lack of understanding of what you do in the military. I was a headhunter for several years. I've rewritten literally thousands of resumes. PM me and I'll look at yours and give you a hand translating it into civilianese.

I will never work for another person as long as I live if fate is kind to me. Once I finish my current obligation, i will become my own boss for good I hope and then pass something onto my children. the last few years I have given up my own personal life to give a great one to me and my family into the future.

I do appreciate the kind offer though, and have a couple service buddies who might take you up on it if you wouldn'nt mind.

 

[Eddie]

The premeses I dispute and for which you've provided no evidence, only conjecture:

1. Due to some reason (since you've backed off from troops to cops) there are more cops who are ex-military than there used to be at some undetermined time in the past.
2. Because their are more cops who are ex-military, cops have gone away from being friendly, AND they use more military gear and tactics.

The argument I brought up to you was never whether soldiers make good cops or not. It was your unsupported assertions. I have, however, in several other posts addressed the idea that being ex-military is in of itself some sort of negative to being a cop.

I don't know. I think that many of the same personality types are drawn to both police and military work. The guys coming into police work from the military have already been through a "weeding out process", in other words, the bad apples who applied to the military didn't make it through to become former military so the representative sample of ex-soldiers that applies to a police department are probably "better" than the same number of non-military people because the non-military sample hasn't been weeded out until it hits the first phases of the hiring process. Therefore a greater percentage of people that make it to the later stages (the ones that can pass the basic physical and background checks) will get to set for the written test.

I think that alone explains why there is a good percentage of former military in police work but it would not explain any recent trends in "friendliness" or use of military gear and tactics because I think that a large percentage of cops have been ex-military for decades.

I would argue no correlation between percentage of ex-military who are cops and perceived attitude of a given department. It's just too broad of a statement to support. If you look at any decent sized department you are gonna find guys from all different branches of the service and not everyone was a combat person. I would say that the vast majority are MP/security types but that probably has to do more with the type of individual that wants those jobs in the military is probably the same sort that would want to do police work.

 

[E5RANGER375]

I think the police already think they are military they just call themelves police to beat the constitution on a technicality

* this post is not directed at you individual LEO's, its directed at your bosses and politicians who give you your marching orders.

 

[thompal]

No one has argued that being a good soldier NECESSARILY means the guy will be a good police officer. Your statement strongly implies that being a soldier NECESSARILY means they won't be a good cop.

I dispute two of your premeses and your conclusion. BTW, you've changed your conclusion from ex-military don't make good cops to they don't automatically make good cops. Nice.

I think ex-soldiers CAN be good cops, just as I believe that ex-teachers CAN be good cops, as can ex-mechanics. However, the attributes that are valued in combat infantry, and make for a successful warfighter, make for a lousy Officer Friendly. There is no room for a "let's kick *ss, kill 'em all Let God sort them out" attitude in a street cop. Maybe SWAT, although that's another debate.

I apparently overestimated the affect of Troops to Cops, since according to DoJ, only 1000 troops were placed in departments nationwide. I wish I could find a list of what departments, but I haven't yet. Also, one aspect of that program which I had forgotten was that it didn't ease recruitment requirements, the program was structured so that if a a police department hired a soldier, DoD would pay the department $25,000 or so. It would be interesting to see what departments those troops went to, and to what rank they have risen.

 

[dross]

I don't know. I think that many of the same personality types are drawn to both police and military work. The guys coming into police work from the military have already been through a "weeding out process", in other words, the bad apples who applied to the military didn't make it through to become former military so the representative sample of ex-soldiers that applies to a police department are probably "better" than the same number of non-military people because the non-military sample hasn't been weeded out until it hits the first phases of the hiring process. Therefore a greater percentage of people that make it to the later stages (the ones that can pass the basic physical and background checks) will get to set for the written test.

I think that alone explains why there is a good percentage of former military in police work but it would not explain any recent trends in "friendliness" or use of military gear and tactics because I think that a large percentage of cops have been ex-military for decades.

I would argue no correlation between percentage of ex-military who are cops and perceived attitude of a given department. It's just too broad of a statement to support. If you look at any decent sized department you are gonna find guys from all different branches of the service and not everyone was a combat person. I would say that the vast majority are MP/security types but that probably has to do more with the type of individual that wants those jobs in the military is probably the same sort that would want to do police work.

Agreed. Not sure how far back you went reading posts, but that's my position, too. I doubt the percentage of ex-military cops has changed much for many, many years.

I was arguing that first you have to prove there are more ex-military cops now, AND that they've had a negative influence.

 

[Eddie]

There is no room for a "let's kick *ss, kill 'em all Let God sort them out" attitude in a street cop.

Yeah there is. If I'm serving a search warrant on the suspected kiddie porn trafficker that runs a computer shop, I want the techno-nerd that writes code for a hobby and struggles with the fitness test.

If I have to go serve a felony warrant on the guy who's a professional prize fighter I want the guy who took a bite out of my thermos for a joke at roll call.

 

[downzero]

What fantasy world do you live in? If you think that was a substantive statement, rather than purely conclusory, you need to think again.

Remember, your most arrogant/rude professor is not the guy you want to emulate in real life.

Joe

There's nothing analytical to be said about telling someone that a particular fact is irrelevant to another analysis.

And the comments about my chosen educational path are also irrelevant and defamatory, have no place in this thread, and I am reporting your post as a result.

If you have a personal insult for me, take it to PM or leave it off the forum.

 

[IndyMonkey]

There's nothing analytical to be said about telling someone that a particular fact is irrelevant to another analysis.

And the comments about my chosen educational path are also irrelevant and defamatory, have no place in this thread, and I am reporting your post as a result.

If you have a personal insult for me, take it to PM or leave it off the forum.

I usually just call people jackass, Fargo was much nicer than I would be.

 

[E5RANGER375]

If I have to go serve a felony warrant on the guy who's a professional prize fighter I want the guy who took a bite out of my thermos for a joke at roll call.

i told you that was an accident i was just trying to get the marshmellow floating in the hot chocolate. WHY IS EVERYONE LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT >>>>>> RAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

[Joe Williams]

There's nothing analytical to be said about telling someone that a particular fact is irrelevant to another analysis.

And the comments about my chosen educational path are also irrelevant and defamatory, have no place in this thread, and I am reporting your post as a result.

If you have a personal insult for me, take it to PM or leave it off the forum.

"Defamatory" is a legal term with a distinct meaning, as you should know. And falsely accusing others of defamation can be, you guessed it, defamatory.

 

[Fargo]

There's nothing analytical to be said about telling someone that a particular fact is irrelevant to another analysis.

LOL, yeah try telling the judge that when he asks you to substantiate a relevance based objection. Let me know how it works out for you when you refuse to give him your analysis of why something is irrelevant and just keep repeating your conclusion.

And the comments about my chosen educational path are also irrelevant and defamatory, have no place in this thread, and I am reporting your post as a result.

Sweet! I don't think I've ever been reported before. I never thought that suggesting that someone not pick rude/arrogant role models would do the trick, but obviously that is the way to go.

If you have a personal insult for me, take it to PM or leave it off the forum.

So let me get this straight, you get to treat others with conclusory rudeness as you wish but I can't call you on it? It is like Eddie says; 99% of lawyers give the other 1% a bad name. You figure out which group you are trying to join.

Joe

 

[PatriotPride]

I think the police already think they are military they just call themelves police to beat the constitution on a technicality

* this post is not directed at you individual LEO's, its directed at your bosses and politicians who give you your marching orders.

Speaking with some experience, yes, you are right. SOME departments operate as if they're military...and it's humorous until you're on the recieving end of it.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

If the situation had "nothing to do with a friggin gun" then why was it important for the LEO to disarm the OP and check to see if the GUN was stolen?

Because there was a reported felony and the OP was a suspect until it was determined that there was in fact no crime committed. Until that determination was made there was probable cause to arrest, which was done. You don't get to keep a gun when you're under arrest. It's just a thing the police do. I don't know. It seems reasonable to me when you are suspected of committing a felony to be disarmed.

So I take it you are saying the police should let criminals keep their guns?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

"Defamatory" is a legal term with a distinct meaning, as you should know. And falsely accusing others of defamation can be, you guessed it, defamatory.

Joe,

Legal terms class is second semester. Please give him a pass until then.

 

[RichardR]

Because there was a reported felony and the OP was a suspect until it was determined that there was in fact no crime committed. Until that determination was made there was probable cause to arrest, which was done. You don't get to keep a gun when you're under arrest. It's just a thing the police do. I don't know. It seems reasonable to me when you are suspected of committing a felony to be disarmed.

So I take it you are saying the police should let criminals keep their guns?

I think what folks are saying is that once it had been determined that there had been no crime committed & that the OP was not a criminal & that he was carrying legally, that his detention should have immediately ended & that his firearm should have been immediately given back to him in the same condition in which it was took.

 

[MinuteMan47]

Because there was a reported felony and the OP was a suspect until it was determined that there was in fact no crime committed. Until that determination was made there was probable cause to arrest, which was done. You don't get to keep a gun when you're under arrest. It's just a thing the police do. I don't know. It seems reasonable to me when you are suspected of committing a felony to be disarmed.

So I take it you are saying the police should let criminals keep their guns?

I am sorry, but I will not give up my rights because of someone else's stupidity.

 

[RichardR]

I am sorry, but I will not give up my rights because of someone else's stupidity.

Arguing with or resisting the officer's attempt to disarm you will only result in you being handcuffed (or worse).

It's best to comply with the officers orders (even if they are in the wrong) and then taking it up with their supervisors or with a judge after the fact.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I think what folks are saying is that once it had been determined that there had been no crime committed & that the OP was not a criminal & that he was carrying legally, that his detention should have immediately ended & that his firearm should have been immediately given back to him in the same condition in which it was took.

I don't disagree with that, and from what I read it was with the exception his weapon was returned unloaded. I said I think that unloading his weapon was silly and classless. I don't think it rises to the level of criminal nor is it worthy of getting pissed off about. I'm not the victim type. I'd have just called him a pissant and been done with it. I guess other people need to hold on to their anger.

 

[MinuteMan47]

Arguing with or resisting the officer's attempt to disarm you will only result in you being handcuffed (or worse).

It's best to comply with the officers orders (even if they are in the wrong) and then taking it up with their supervisors or with a judge after the fact.

When did you ever read a post from me that says I will ARGUE with and RESIST a LEO??? Thanks for putting your own twist on my posts...