Police officer looking for respectful dialoge

[Fallschirjmäger]

What can I as an officer do to gain trust of an individual? Or as an officer do I have to always be under suspicion and that is something I have to live with? Are there officers you trust?

Yeah, you will kinda have to live with always being under suspicion.

But look at it this way - you're taught that any person you make a traffic stop on could be the one that's going to try and kill you, and you conduct yourself accordingly ...right?
Well, we the people, have learned to live with you having that suspicion of us. You can learn to live with us suspecting that anything and everything we say may, can and will be used against us in a court of law and acting accordingly.


Are there officers I trust? Absolutely...... when they ask me how my day was, or if it's "hot enough for ya?"
But we also live with the knowledge that when Officer Friendly is asking us our name, it's because he wants to see if it's associated with a criminal act, when he asks us what we're doing out and about it's because he's looking for a criminal act
He's looking to do his job
He's looking to put a criminal in jail
...... and He just happens to be looking at us.


We don't ask for much, if you respect our rights we will respect you in turn. If you go further and actually Promote our rights, there's no telling how much respect and support you can earn here.

 

[stargateranch]

Now were getting somewhere

I would tell them:

Section I.

Scrupulously respect all rights. Of everybody, not just OCers. (I'm not so selfish that I'm going to only promote rights for myself.)

Mere carry of a sidearm in no way creates suspicion.

No cheesy cop conversational games. For example, "If you have nothing to hide, why don't you want to talk to me?" Since that question only gets asked after a refusal, it immediately demonstrates the officer does not respect rights. If the officer did respect rights, he wouldn't ask the follow-up, would he? To illustrate the point, full recognition and respect of the right to refuse consent to an encounter would result in an abrupt and polite termination of the encounter. "Sorry to bother you, sir. Have a nice day."

Ditto for identity or identity document demands. In fact, without RAS, don't bother to demand identity. See Brown v Texas, Kolender v Lawson, and Hiibel v 6th Judicial District Court.

This is going to require some thinking on the part of police. Some of the cheesy tactics are so ingrained as to seem reflexive. For example, identity demands. We've lost count of the number of times cops demanded identity documents without authority to do so. Unless Utah law requires a permit to OC foot or car and requires an identity document with the permit or some similar law, no RAS = no authority to demand identity or identity documents (see court cases cited just above). Yet, we've seen time and again cops demanding not just verbal identity, but identity documents, with no authority to make the demand/compel exhibiting them. In short, the inescapeable conclusion is that those cops had been doing it so regularly they completely forgot they had no authority. And, then got anywhere from annoyed to threatening when refused. So, this is going to take some foresight. Somebody is going to have to think through these points and recognize where the trouble might come up.

Oh, and I don't always OC. So, don't limit the rights respect and observance to OCers. A cop might encounter me during a traffic stop for something very minor like a burned out tail-light. Just because I'm not OCing doesn't mean I parked my knowledge of rights at home on the dresser.


Section II

Tear down the Blue Wall of Silence. And, everything it hides--put a stop to the garbage it hides. I don't believe for one second that cops who are willing to go hands-on or trade gunfire with criminals are suddenly all cowardly when the criminal or rights violator is another cop. The mere existence of the Blue Wall of Silence is the biggest stain on good police. The only way bad cops can get away with their garbage is if so-called good cops look the other way or lie to cover it up.

The ironic part is that bad cops, the ones who are correctable, will probably be grateful for the correction. Social people usually are--they recognize when they're screwing up and although its hard to swallow, don't genuinely object beyond perhaps a temorary protest against correction. Meaning, correct correction is acceptable to social people. Its the ugly ones who won't correct. And, you wouldn't want them around anyway.

So, tear down the Blue Wall of Silence. Utah made a huge contribution with the Tueller Drill. Make another one by forming a police union of good cops to battle on the behalf of good cops to get rid of bad cops and get the gray ones corrected. Or, whatever it takes. Let me see some essays from LT's and Captains in police trade journals decrying the Blue Wall of Silence. Call attention to the issue. Let me see some Letters-to-the-Editor by police officers calling attention to the problem police unions pose when they side with bad cops to keep them on the public payroll, about how bad it is for good cops to work in an environment where they have to worry about bad cops not supporting them when the guns come out on those calls that make their blood run cold. Good cops deserve a good work environment. A good work environment definitely does not include bad cops.

Some good points, first the blue wall of silence. It exsists, my department is good at fixing problems and getting rid of dead weight. I am a single officer, I do what I can but its tough. Do you think its getting better or worse? Didn't technology has made it hard to hide things?

Second, I have and will continue to tell other officers, I train alot of new guys, "this stop is over". Belive it or not I had a bad experience with over zelous cops in college, searching my vehilce and what not for two hours while I sat shiviring in the cold. Do I hold a grudge? not really but I think about that experience, often. Good cops can make mistakes I chalk my experience up to that.

Sometimes "games" can root out criminal behavior. Often times I already have cause to search a vehilce I document it on my video recorder and then I will ask for consent. Why? cause they look right where they hid the drugs when you ask. Saves time

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Citizen...I am looking for ways to improve myself.

@stargateranch

Fair enough. We will see. In the meantime I will soften it a bit.

Here is what you are up against.

Your industry has a sordid history of rights violations, arrogance, so-called good cops looking the other way or actively protecting bad cops, false statements on warrant affidavits, false statements during suppression hearings, etc., etc.

From your industry, a large percentage who have shown up on this forum have espoused or even advocated anti-rights and statist beliefs. We have good cops on the forum, but we've had as many or more bad representatives of your industry.

So, we will see. If you are sincere, it will show.

One thing you have going for you is that, except for the "citizen is a troll" comment, you're not using tons of ad hominem, straw-man, or evasion tactics. Standard fare from the cops who weren't/aren't such good examples from your industry.

 

[wrightme]

One thing you have going for you is that, except for the "citizen is a troll" comment, you're not using tons of ad hominem, straw-man, or evasion tactics. Standard fare from the cops who weren't/aren't such good examples from your industry.

You fully earned that moniker. In spades.

So far, he is the better man in that exchange.

 

[stargateranch]

@stargateranch

Fair enough. We will see. In the meantime I will soften it a bit.

Here is what you are up against.

Your industry has a sordid history of rights violations, arrogance, so-called good cops looking the other way or actively protecting bad cops, false statements on warrant affidavits, false statements during suppression hearings, etc., etc.

From your industry, a large percentage who have shown up on this forum have espoused or even advocated anti-rights and statist beliefs. We have good cops on the forum, but we've had as many or more bad representatives of your industry.

So, we will see. If you are sincere, it will show.

One thing you have going for you is that, except for the "citizen is a troll" comment, you're not using tons of ad hominem, straw-man, or evasion tactics. Standard fare from the cops who weren't/aren't such good examples from your industry.

Well for what it is worth, I would never lie in court or on an affidavit. It's not worth it. I am not kidding one second here, if you ever find yourself in Salt Lake I will buy lunch and we can talk. Or you can come one a ride along....serious.

 

[Citizen]

You fully earned that moniker. In spades.

So far, he is the better man in that exchange.

The fundamental error is in thinking there was an exchange. If you look at my posts, it is pretty obvious that I started at the top of his first post, and worked my way down. Point by point. The reason you see individual posts from me, with other posters in between, is because I was breaking it up into pieces, addressing a point, posting it, then composing the next, etc., rather than addressing the points in one long post.

The only exchange was with you earlier when I said, "NO!..."

As I mentioned earlier, I was not talking to him. I was critiquing his original post, point by point, for other readers.

I did not particularly read any of his replies until almost my last post in that critique string. His replies were not relevant to a critique of the original post.


With that said, it seems our main disagreement is how nice to be towards visitors. I think that is a matter of opinion. At least I hope it is. Also, I'm hoping you, of all people, did not miss the anti-rights bias, falsehoods, and subtle criticism in the original post.

And, given the anti-rights bias, etc, in the original post, I had...um...(heh, heh, heh)...not merely RAS, but probable cause to suspect the writer and take that original post apart. Plain view doctrine alone supports that.

 

[yz9890]

thanks for starting the thread. some good info here.

I normally cc. mostly because I'm a really busy person and don't have time to butt heads with every other store manager or drive across town to a 2nd amdmt friendly establishment. as a result I only have 2 oc experiences with Kentucky leo's and they were both pretty similar.

1) at a restaurant with friends after an afternoon at the range with a P229 on my belt. someone, not identified to me, called the police on us. 2 Oldham County sheriffs walked up to our table an the younger one asked "does Open Range still do the lunch special?" my friend said "yep, til 2". cops says, "sweet deal" and they left. followed shortly after by a pretty upset woman and her young son.

2) I dropped my wife and daughter off at a concert in downtown Louisville and ran some errands before coming back to wait for them across the street stopping at several shops along the street. It got hot and I took my jacket off exposing a G27 on my belt. shortly after, a single city cop approached me on the sidewalk and said "i was called here because of you and your gun. just wanted to give you a heads up". then he walked off before I even said a word.

I got the impression all 3 of those leo's observed me a bit before approaching and had already determined i wasn't up to anything. I don't consider either of those experiences negative in any way. I understand others have had much more confrontational experiences and that perhaps KY is a decent 2nd amdmt state compared to others though.

so far so good for me anyway.

btw, my older brother is a city cop in Provo.

thanks for your participation.

 

[WCrawford]

NO! When I get rational dialog that is not full of anti-rights bias, falsehood, and subtle criticism then I'll respond in kind.

If our visitor wants "nicer" commentary, he can change his tune. Fast.

But, if you will notice, I am not "dialoguing" with our visitor, so he has no standing to complain about un-respectful dialogue. I am critiquing his positions for other readers who may not be familiar with the ideas or may not have had the chance yet to hear them them or develop them on their own.

I wasn't going to write this until a bit later, but I'll throw it in now:


We do not need "dialogue" or "bridges" or whatever with police. Police are already supposed to be respecting all rights. Genuinely professional police who scrupulously respect rights would have no need of dialogue or bridges. They'd already be giving us what we deserve--what anybody deserves. And, they certainly wouldn't have to ask us about it.

I'm with citizen on this.

I'm not sure our new visitor is here to actually have a dialog (I really hope he is) or here to stir up trouble. For now I can attribute the standard cop double speak to the training.

 

[WCrawford]

3. Confrontational, if you are putting on a firearm then hoping the cops stop you so you can show how smart, right, or awesome you are you are stupid. You may be well within your rights but you are stupid. The purpose of carrying a firearms should be defense. Carry for the right reason.

I would like to address this in your original post.

There are a great many OCers across the country who put on their guns everyday hoping that the cops in their areas will start respecting their rights. They know that the cops are likely not to do so. They know that their lawful activity will provoke cops into fits of rage.

If you search this board you will find many examples. Like Skidmark in VA, the Culver's 5 in WI, Danbus in VA, Mark Fiorino in Philly, and on and on and on. There are even cases of abuses by police in Utah.

Please tell me, who is really being confrontational?

 

[jt59]

Make sure no laws are being violated? False. Wrong. UnAmerican. Dangerous. An overstatement of purpose and an overreach of authority. Suspicion and probable cause proceeding from a null point of innocence underlies the legal doctrine. Without genuine RAS, he can only fish, while the investigate-ee is under no obligation to assist setting a hook in his own mouth, and can walk away. With genuine RAS the cop can detain and investigate further, with limits, and must release the fish if the cop cannot develop probable cause. With probable cause the cop can arrest.* Do you all see how all that proceeds from an assumption of innocence? If the underlying assumption is guilt, then there would be no point in limits on consensual encounters, detentions, and arrests.

The simple fact that citizens can refuse consent to a consensual encounter defeats a cop making sure no laws are being violated. The simple fact a detainee cannot be compelled to answer questions defeats a cop making sure no laws are being violated.

We have heard this nonsense about "making sure" from cops before. Guns requested or demanded during consensual encounters to run the serial number to "make sure" the gun isn't stolen. Identity documents requested and demanded during consensual encounters and detentions (both lawful and unlawful) to "make sure" the OCer is not a prohibitied possessor. Hogwash, officers. You develop genuine RAS that I am a prohibited possessor, then investigate that within the limits of your authority.

So, "make sure" is an overreach of authority.

"Make sure" is an overstatement of purpose because it was decided long ago in this great nation that some crimes undetected, some crimes unpunished was the price of keeping government agents under control. It was a deliberate decision to pay that price--that not all criminals are caught or punished. It is part of the price of freedom.

"Officer, no offense. I know you're just doing your job. But, literally over a million Americans have died defending our rights. I'm not going to spit on their graves by waiving them."


* See Terry v Ohio and subsequent cases.

I am with Citizen +1000 on his comments and challenges to the OP.

Observe from a distance, leave me be ...Consenual contact is merely a tactic used to get me to give up my rights.

http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/54162036 - biggest street gang in America

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/02/spd_officer_ian_birk_escapes_c.php - the knife was closed and found on the street next to the victims body....officer allowed to resign instead of firing to preserve his pension and ability to apply for another job somewhere

http://www.8newsnow.com/global/story.asp?s=12785291 - Costco murder of a citizen

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/may/26/metro-officer-pleads-not-guilty-firearms-charge/ - officer involved in Costco shooting disposes of gun to a felon

Do officers have to tell the truth when questioning someone? ....or later in trial? They even have a name for it.

testilying: http://lawenforcementcorruption.blogspot.com/2009/02/when-police-officers-lie.html

....take your pick, there's plenty more to

 

[JoeSparky]

Well for what it is worth, I would never lie in court or on an affidavit. It's not worth it. I am not kidding one second here, if you ever find yourself in Salt Lake I will buy lunch and we can talk. Or you can come one a ride along....serious.

Question with some background FIRST

Referencing the following UTAH Statute:

Specifically this portion 53-5a-102(5)
http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE53/htm/53_05a010200.htm
53-5a-102. Uniform firearm laws.
(1) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right under Article I, Section 6 of the Utah Constitution, the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform civil and criminal firearm laws throughout the state.
(2) Except as specifically provided by state law, a local authority or state entity may not:
(a) prohibit an individual from owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or keeping a firearm at the individual's place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle lawfully in the individual's possession or lawfully under the individual's control; or
(b) require an individual to have a permit or license to purchase, own, possess, transport, or keep a firearm.
(3) In conjunction with Title 76, Chapter 10, Part 5, Weapons, this section is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its political subdivisions and municipalities.
(4) All authority to regulate firearms is reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities or state entities.
(5) Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property.
(6) As used in this section:
(a) "firearm" has the same meaning as defined in Subsection 76-10-501(9); and
(b) "local authority or state entity" includes public school districts, public schools, and state institutions of higher education.
(7) Nothing in this section restricts or expands private property rights.


Now for the questions:

Would I be allowed to do a ridealong if I was OPENLY CARRYING my lawfully possessed and holstered sidearm?

During any ridealong if I were Concealed CArry would I be asked if I was armed? And IF I were to answer in the affirmative would the ridealong proceed?

 

[Citizen]

SNIP I am with Citizen +1000 on his comments and challenges to the OP...

While JT59 has valid points with all the links. Lets not go too far down that path, fellas. At the moment, we're talking to the cop about OCers, cops, and observing rights.

I only mentioned my points so he'd know where he stood and what he was up against with regard to getting me to relent, that is to say, so he would know that neither a few comments, nor the "we protect and serve" or other superficial public-relations comments would work.

We can expose the dark side of the police industry later.

 

[stargateranch]

I would like to address this in your original post.

There are a great many OCers across the country who put on their guns everyday hoping that the cops in their areas will start respecting their rights. They know that the cops are likely not to do so. They know that their lawful activity will provoke cops into fits of rage.

If you search this board you will find many examples. Like Skidmark in VA, the Culver's 5 in WI, Danbus in VA, Mark Fiorino in Philly, and on and on and on. There are even cases of abuses by police in Utah.

Please tell me, who is really being confrontational?

Thats true, there are hundreds of cases I am sure. That's why I am here to learn to better deal with this and protect your rights while still doing the job my supervisors ask me to do. I looked at other websites for guidence (police one, they have an ask a cop feature 2500 some odd questions, none about open carry). So I decided to come to the source maybe I can gain some insight.

 

[stargateranch]

Question with some background FIRST

Referencing the following UTAH Statute:

Specifically this portion 53-5a-102(5)
http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE53/htm/53_05a010200.htm
53-5a-102. Uniform firearm laws.
(1) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right under Article I, Section 6 of the Utah Constitution, the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform civil and criminal firearm laws throughout the state.
(2) Except as specifically provided by state law, a local authority or state entity may not:
(a) prohibit an individual from owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or keeping a firearm at the individual's place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle lawfully in the individual's possession or lawfully under the individual's control; or
(b) require an individual to have a permit or license to purchase, own, possess, transport, or keep a firearm.
(3) In conjunction with Title 76, Chapter 10, Part 5, Weapons, this section is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its political subdivisions and municipalities.
(4) All authority to regulate firearms is reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities or state entities.
(5) Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property.
(6) As used in this section:
(a) "firearm" has the same meaning as defined in Subsection 76-10-501(9); and
(b) "local authority or state entity" includes public school districts, public schools, and state institutions of higher education.
(7) Nothing in this section restricts or expands private property rights.


Now for the questions:

Would I be allowed to do a ridealong if I was OPENLY CARRYING my lawfully possessed and holstered sidearm?

During any ridealong if I were Concealed CArry would I be asked if I was armed? And IF I were to answer in the affirmative would the ridealong proceed?

By Law, Yes! However my department policy is more restrictive and does not allow you to be armed. It's not my choice, it's a rule I agreed to follow. I would prefer you to be armed in case I get shot in the face on a traffic stop at least you can defend yourself. Those who do ride with me and cannot be armed I show them how to release my shotgun, where my backup handgun is, and where my m-14 and M-4 are. I show them how to run the radio and call for help if needed. It kinda freaks some of them out (a state senator got the speech one time, what a night). ADDED THIS, there is also a requirement before you ride I must run your criminal history and explain to you that some of what you might see and hear is confidential. And you have to sign a waiver.

 

[sawah]

GUYS!! This is a great thread. Thanks to everyone.

I have a couple questions:

1. Starranch - let's say you have a 'fantasy' situation like this: You get two calls - one there is a car load of 'thug-looking guys' who appear unarmed, but have certain aspects that set off your LEO-spidey senses due to the dispatcher's input - the where, what, general tone of the details. There's a business where they're about to make a payroll drop, and it's a bit isolated, etc.

You have another call, a MWAG who is walking his dog, but he's carrying a BIG 1911, openly on his hip. He's in a low crime area, but maybe there are 'skittish' people there - a ritzy neighborhood, he's dressed to the 9's, upscale guy, IDK, alligator cowboy boots, really the ONLY thing about him which is alarming is that big gun carried openly. He might even be on his own frontage, not hassling anybody, but the caller is frantic (I'm SO scared of guns, he's got one...no, it's not being waved around, yes, I've known the guy for 10 years, he lives here...yada, yada

You as the LEO in the area, have an equal choice. You have similar distance to travel to reach each one. Your spidey sense is going off like the dickens for case 1, the thugs in the car with a muddy license plate. You also don't see any evidence they are armed.

Do you go to the first case, knowing you might have a real crime there, but due to the situation you can't get back up, you're a little scared of that part of town, even. The second case you know is going to be the typical 'cake walk', BUT the guy does have a gun. You won't get too hassled if you go check that one and the business does get robbed while you're chatting up and disarming the MWAG, well, because he has a gun and there are scared rich folk there (You know they're ninnies), and your boss is up for a political job and needs their support and even if you stop a robbery and make a couple arrests, if the rich folk are not attended to it could be bad politically.

WHICH ONE DO YOU PURSUE. Safe, low-key, obvious NON-perpetrator, engaged in OBVIOUS legal activity, or scary thug guys in high crime area, engaged in OBVIOUS pre-crime type behavior, but still having violated no laws. You're pretty sure you could get injured dealing with these thugs.

----
2. You go on a stop that is a favorite one for your partner, there's a guy and his buddy who the partner just hates - he stole his wife, and he's a real reprobate, but they're not doing anything illegal at the moment. You've just stopped a casual drug user and confiscated a little dime bag, your buddy has it in his shirt pocket and you've written this slime a ticket (it's a misdemeanor possession thing). You're a little frustrated and want some "Action", but you know your overly-zealous partner might be tempted to plant this bag on the guy he hates and it would be fun to hassle them, but in your heart you know it's a waste of time. You have no grudge on the guy.

Your partner says 'MAN, let's go hassle this guy, I can totally make a charge stick'. You're thinking 'Man, I don't like planting drugs...', even though you know this guy is no Snow White, he probably did something he needs to be smacked for in the last month but you couldn't catch him. You know he's too smart to be holding.

Your partner says 'If you don't go on this stop, don't be too sure I'll be backing you up on your next 'officer needs help' call the next time you need help...I might take my time getting there'. You sort of know he's kinda kidding, but you still know he's been rough on guys that are stopped, has a lot of unresolved 'excessive force' complains, but none have stuck. He is obviously using steroids, he's a muscle head and the department likes using him as an 'enforcer'.

You are at a quandary. Do you, a good cop you feel, allow this 'angry cop' to go plant evidence and be the Macho, Type-A, Alpha dog, or do you stand up to him a little and say 'Oh jeeze, you know we got a report of a suspicious activity at this one business, we gotta go ride by there, let's go do some REAL policework and not 'do' this Jack-wagon, come on'. Your partner glares at you.

DO you cave and try to still be the good cop knowing you'll have to turn your head and keep your mouth shut and enable the Alpha dog partner, and keep him as your faithful 'six', or do you do the obvious 'right thing' and stand up and say 'we're NOT planting on this guy, we need to go check this business'.

TIA

 

[jt59]

While JT59 has valid points with all the links. Lets not go too far down that path, fellas. At the moment, we're talking to the cop about OCers, cops, and observing rights.

I only mentioned my points so he'd know where he stood and what he was up against with regard to getting me to relent, that is to say, so he would know that neither a few comments, nor the "we protect and serve" or other superficial public-relations comments would work.

We can expose the dark side of the police industry later.

Fair enough, I'm not into bashing anyone. It's just that we seem to continue to ***** foot around the issue trying not to go offending and the results are always the same. Just another example of someone I know personally:

Tom Brewster... http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?81293-Harrassed-by-4-sheriffs-in-STARBUCKS!

He was buying lunch...like always here....

Our WA State Constitution, like other states is pretty clear...yet the issue persists... In WA:

SECTION 3 PERSONAL RIGHTS. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Washington law tells us specifically what we can't do, I expect Utah is specific in it's exclusions. Why is that so hard to follow? The bias that creeps into an agency and ends up on the street in policy and policing justification for unwarrented stops in the first place is what I rail against.

Casual contacts that escalate,"you maybe a felon", "how do I know that gun isn't stolen" and other excuses stated in the thread... police running plates on anyone and everyone with their on board computers, a law that requires the local gov'ts to provide storage for citizens when they enter restricted areas of a court house abused by the local PD that ends up with you getting your gun back empty, loose bullets and magazines pulled.....and the instruction, don't reload that here, for officer safety...take it outside.......and don't "alarm" anyone.

A systemic violation of the public rights runs into a systemic loss of public trust...and IMHO it is on the agency to earn it back (the OP's effort maybe?).

We continue to see the urban militarization of police and it (obviously) frustrates me when asked, "why do you feel the need to carry a gun", "do you feel unsafe today"?

All by a guy with a club, mace, a knife, a gun, a shotgun, a uniform with a bullet proof vest, a radio for backup and an armory in his trunk...

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2011/12/federal_investigation_finds_se.html

While I appreciate the effort of the OP in trying to learn (our persective?), he may end up pushing rope to effect any lasting change until he becomes Chief...but I acknowlege that this is at least a start and I applaud his effort.

 

[stargateranch]

This one is easy!

GUYS!! This is a great thread. Thanks to everyone.

I have a couple questions:

1. Starranch - let's say you have a 'fantasy' situation like this: You get two calls - one there is a car load of 'thug-looking guys' who appear unarmed, but have certain aspects that set off your LEO-spidey senses due to the dispatcher's input - the where, what, general tone of the details. There's a business where they're about to make a payroll drop, and it's a bit isolated, etc.

You have another call, a MWAG who is walking his dog, but he's carrying a BIG 1911, openly on his hip. He's in a low crime area, but maybe there are 'skittish' people there - a ritzy neighborhood, he's dressed to the 9's, upscale guy, IDK, alligator cowboy boots, really the ONLY thing about him which is alarming is that big gun carried openly. He might even be on his own frontage, not hassling anybody, but the caller is frantic (I'm SO scared of guns, he's got one...no, it's not being waved around, yes, I've known the guy for 10 years, he lives here...yada, yada

You as the LEO in the area, have an equal choice. You have similar distance to travel to reach each one. Your spidey sense is going off like the dickens for case 1, the thugs in the car with a muddy license plate. You also don't see any evidence they are armed.

Do you go to the first case, knowing you might have a real crime there, but due to the situation you can't get back up, you're a little scared of that part of town, even. The second case you know is going to be the typical 'cake walk', BUT the guy does have a gun. You won't get too hassled if you go check that one and the business does get robbed while you're chatting up and disarming the MWAG, well, because he has a gun and there are scared rich folk there (You know they're ninnies), and your boss is up for a political job and needs their support and even if you stop a robbery and make a couple arrests, if the rich folk are not attended to it could be bad politically.

WHICH ONE DO YOU PURSUE. Safe, low-key, obvious NON-perpetrator, engaged in OBVIOUS legal activity, or scary thug guys in high crime area, engaged in OBVIOUS pre-crime type behavior, but still having violated no laws. You're pretty sure you could get injured dealing with these thugs.

----
2. You go on a stop that is a favorite one for your partner, there's a guy and his buddy who the partner just hates - he stole his wife, and he's a real reprobate, but they're not doing anything illegal at the moment. You've just stopped a casual drug user and confiscated a little dime bag, your buddy has it in his shirt pocket and you've written this slime a ticket (it's a misdemeanor possession thing). You're a little frustrated and want some "Action", but you know your overly-zealous partner might be tempted to plant this bag on the guy he hates and it would be fun to hassle them, but in your heart you know it's a waste of time. You have no grudge on the guy.

Your partner says 'MAN, let's go hassle this guy, I can totally make a charge stick'. You're thinking 'Man, I don't like planting drugs...', even though you know this guy is no Snow White, he probably did something he needs to be smacked for in the last month but you couldn't catch him. You know he's too smart to be holding.

Your partner says 'If you don't go on this stop, don't be too sure I'll be backing you up on your next 'officer needs help' call the next time you need help...I might take my time getting there'. You sort of know he's kinda kidding, but you still know he's been rough on guys that are stopped, has a lot of unresolved 'excessive force' complains, but none have stuck. He is obviously using steroids, he's a muscle head and the department likes using him as an 'enforcer'.

You are at a quandary. Do you, a good cop you feel, allow this 'angry cop' to go plant evidence and be the Macho, Type-A, Alpha dog, or do you stand up to him a little and say 'Oh jeeze, you know we got a report of a suspicious activity at this one business, we gotta go ride by there, let's go do some REAL policework and not 'do' this Jack-wagon, come on'. Your partner glares at you.

DO you cave and try to still be the good cop knowing you'll have to turn your head and keep your mouth shut and enable the Alpha dog partner, and keep him as your faithful 'six', or do you do the obvious 'right thing' and stand up and say 'we're NOT planting on this guy, we need to go check this business'.

TIA

1. I go to the to the "thug" call. Now its likely that both calls will be nothing. Always trust my "spidery sense" as you called it.

2. My response for this one is neither. If I knew a cop intended to plant drugs I would drive his butt straight to the office where I know for a fact he would be relived of duty and sent home for the remainder of the shift. What happens after that is up to IA and his supervisors. The officers I work with will support me in this too and have before. I would rather watch my own six.

Edit, easy on the steroid thing. I do natural bodybuilding competitions and get railroaded sometimes. Never used em have taken numerous polys before competitions to prove such. Also got random drug tested 3x last year for work. Muscle head can mean disciplined.

 

[stargateranch]

@jt59

Pushing a rope picking up a wet noodle would be fair. And you are right is there is not much I can do in the broad scheme of things as a single officer not a chief. If I get a call this week it will make a difference to that one person. Also I mentioned a train new officers and teach at the academy. I can train them what to do or not to do.

Militarization of police, I am on and have been on a tactical team for the last seven years. Last year I spent about two weeks in the back country chasing murder suspects. One with a scoped AR, one with an AK, the other just a .22 and handgun. That's why I keep the guns I have. I hope I dont start a storm with that statement.

I have never asked someone why do they need to carry a gun. I have however been asked why I carry one at church.

 

[MAC702]

By Law, Yes! However my department policy is more restrictive and does not allow you to be armed. It's not my choice, it's a rule I agreed to follow. I would prefer you to be armed in case I get shot in the face on a traffic stop at least you can defend yourself. Those who do ride with me and cannot be armed I show them how to release my shotgun, where my backup handgun is, and where my m-14 and M-4 are. I show them how to run the radio and call for help if needed. It kinda freaks some of them out (a state senator got the speech one time, what a night). ADDED THIS, there is also a requirement before you ride I must run your criminal history and explain to you that some of what you might see and hear is confidential. And you have to sign a waiver.

(1) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right under Article I, Section 6 of the Utah Constitution, the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform civil and criminal firearm laws throughout the state.
(2) Except as specifically provided by state law, a local authority or state entity may not:
(a) prohibit an individual from owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or keeping a firearm at the individual's place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle lawfully in the individual's possession or lawfully under the individual's control; ...

From a purely legal standpoint, perhaps the law does allow the police department policy to request that you be unarmed for a ridealong.

Stargateranch, I continue to express my thanks for your respectfulness in this thread, and your diligence!

But, in looking at your response: you have a primary sidearm, backup sidearm, a shotgun, and two rifles in the car? Do you ride alone? How do you feel about civilians keeping that much firepower in their vehicles? (Yeah, this stretches the topic of OC a bit but does speak toward common attitudes.)

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

I'd say that if someone only has his primary, his backup, a shotgun, and two rifles in the car, then he's severely under-gunned.
C'mon now, gas isn't that expensive.