LEO seizure of a handgun

[Odin]

AFJailor wrote:

1.Overly aggressive behavior

2.If the CHL appears to be under the influence of drugs/alchohol

3.Also, a lot of things that an LEO does are based off of personal experience and intuition, so if you start acting overly nervous, or your behavior is such that it gives the LEO reason to believe you could become aggresive, then I believe disarming would be justifiable.

Those are just off the top of my head, I am sure there are plenty more.

Number three is somewhat subjective, but I fully recognize the value of "street smarts".

95% of police work is somewhat subjective. Whether or not to arrest someone is often subjective (except in certain cases). Taking someone's freedom by arresting them is much more serious than temporarily disarming someone on a traffic stop. If you seek a world without subjective law enforcement you're either going to have anarchy or a police state. Neither way is better than our current system in my opinion.

[AFJailor]

Flint, I feel like we are agreeing on most of this argument.

I just think, as I am sure you do , that an LEO has a obligation and a responsibility to defend himself and others...this goes for every man/women but more so for LEO's. I am also sure that you and I both think that there are certain occasions when an LEO should be able to disarm people, I DO NOT think that a policy should be in affect to disarm all CHLs, I must of said this 4-5 times by now.

I guess the part where we are disagreeing is that I believe an LEO should be able to use his street smarts and on the job experience to determine if there is a safety risk and disarm someone. I understand that you do not want to be disarmed, but I doubt you or many other people on this forum would give a cop a reason to feel endangered. Is there occasions where CHL's are disarmed for the sheer fact that an LEO is green/nervous/paranoid, yes and is that a problem? Yes again. If something like that were to happen then you should file a complaint and try and get the problem resolved. However, I do firmly believe that the decision is in the hands of the officer and he just like we must face the consequences of his actions if they are ruled to be inappropriate.

[flintknapper]

AFJailor wrote:

1.Overly aggressive behavior

2.If the CHL appears to be under the influence of drugs/alchohol

3.Also, a lot of things that an LEO does are based off of personal experience and intuition, so if you start acting overly nervous, or your behavior is such that it gives the LEO reason to believe you could become aggresive, then I believe disarming would be justifiable.

Those are just off the top of my head, I am sure there are plenty more.

Number three is somewhat subjective, but I fully recognize the value of "street smarts".

95% of police work is somewhat subjective. Whether or not to arrest someone is often subjective (except in certain cases). Taking someone's freedom by arresting them is much more serious than temporarily disarming someone on a traffic stop. If you seek a world without subjective law enforcement you're either going to have anarchy or a police state. Neither way is better than our current system in my opinion.

I would argue the assertion that "95% of police work is subjective"... is accurate, but certainly the entirety of an officers experiences come into play when performing their duties.

I wouldn't have it any other way...and it is a vital part of the job.

But, I am sure you would agree...it is important for an officer to make intelligent decisions when applying those "gut feelings".

If personal safety becomes the ONLY thing important to the officer, then...I submit they should choose another line of work.

Otherwise, they would logically disarm, handcuff and immobilize every person they came in contact with. Nothing subjective about that.

My point is a simple one: Have a legitimate reason to disarm a CHL before doing so.

[AFJailor]

100%

[LedJedi]

My point is a simple one: Have a legitimate reason to disarm a CHL before doing so.

[flintknapper]

Flint, I feel like we are agreeing on most of this argument.

I just think, as I am sure you do , that an LEO has a obligation and a responsibility to defend himself and others...this goes for every man/women but more so for LEO's. I am also sure that you and I both think that there are certain occasions when an LEO should be able to disarm people, I DO NOT think that a policy should be in affect to disarm all CHLs, I must of said this 4-5 times by now.

I guess the part where we are disagreeing is that I believe an LEO should be able to use his street smarts and on the job experience to determine if there is a safety risk and disarm someone. I understand that you do not want to be disarmed, but I doubt you or many other people on this forum would give a cop a reason to feel endangered. Is there occasions where CHL's are disarmed for the sheer fact that an LEO is green/nervous/paranoid, yes and is that a problem? Yes again. If something like that were to happen then you should file a complaint and try and get the problem resolved. However, I do firmly believe that the decision is in the hands of the officer and he just like we must face the consequences of his actions if they are ruled to be inappropriate.

We are NOT in disagreement about LEO using experience, gut feeling, street smarts, etc....to do their job.

An officer simply will not last long if he doesn't employ these things with the criminal populace..and to some degree with the general citizenry (because you don't know who you have stopped).

My objection... is to the wholesale application of distrust when dealing with CHL's.

It is ONLY the misuse of the authority to disarm that I am concerned with. Perhaps I failed to make that clear.

Often times, it takes a little "friction" to bring attention to a disservice being done. I don't really view these "discussions" as arguments, and I hope you don't either. It is well, to exchange ideas and feelings.

If LEO and the general public did more of this...I suspect relations would be much better than they are.

Only once in my 50+ years have I had an occasion to truly dislike my experience with a LEO. I am always "genuinely" respectful of them and normally receive the same in return. Thats just the way I was raised.

If ever I receive what I believe to be improper or unlawful treatment, I will be at the Chief's desk post-haste trying to correct it. Other's should do so as well.

So yeah, "consequences" works just fine for me.

[CompVest]

I just think, as I am sure you do , that an LEO has a obligation and a responsibility to defend himself and others...

Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases stating such.

(ie: Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." - Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

Police may choose to protect but they don't have any obligation to do so. This is one of many reasons I think keeping and exercising our 2A rights is so important. We need to take responsibilty for our own safety.

[Dragonfighter]

Reasonableness is the "standard" in both the citizen's right to use force/deadly force and the LEO's right to disarm a CHL and/or incurr a person's vehicle. There have been some very "reasonable" and some vague reasons articulated for a LEO to disarm a CHL of his/her CCW ASAP (dang, there are a lot of initials here).

My one, and only one interjection into this discussion is to ask whether we can or cannot expect the same strict application of the "reasonableness" standard be applied to a LEO when he chooses to disarm a citizen or search their vehicle/person?

To suggest, for instance, that by answering I, "...when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes (I believed) the
deadly force is immediately necessary:..." shot the yo-yo laying in my front yard should be the end of the whole affair is ludicrous. I had better be able to articulate to a sitting Grand Jury (either in person or through the agency of a sympathetic DA) why I was reasonable in my belief it was immediately necessary to shoot this person. If I can't do that, I will stand trial and if I can't sufficiently articulate my "reasonableness" to that jury, I'm going to jail or worse.

To suggest that an officer be given a non-scrutinizing nod from their department, the government, SCOTUS or the population at large because the key phrase, that he/she, "...at any time the officer reasonably believes(-ed) it is (was) necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual." and disarmed the CHL, searched the vehicle or arrested an individual at a routine stop is equally as ludicrous and moreover repugnant. {Who's got the longest run-on now}. To further suggest that one will not get anywhere by lodging a complaint after the fact is fruitless is the kind of mentality that allows the further erosion of the republican principles our country was founded on.

Challenging the LEO's authority at a scene is a non sequitor, respectfully asking what his reasons are, is not. If no reason is offered it is still the better part of wisdom (and the practical reality) to comply and pursue the issue administratively. If he becomes agitated go completely submissive. Pursue it by obtaining all records immediately and as a first step. Failing administrative redress, pursue it legally but do not let it go unanswered.

That said, I have never had a problem at a stop because I was armed. I am a meticulous driver and rarely have I even been stopped and mostly because of a momentary distraction and even more rarely, cited. I have never been disarmed and have, with one distinct exception (not of pertinence here), been treated professionally and respectfully. Usually the first or third things said is why I was being stopped. If I am ever asked to disarm without the same courtesy (offered or in reply), I'll be going after satisfaction starting at the desk seargent and on up from there.

[flintknapper]

Well....clearly this is an important and passionate subject, else it would not have generated 6 pages of replies and attracted 1,200 views.

Even though I am a bit dogmatic about certain aspects of CHL disarms, I want to make it clear that I am proud of the LEO that go out daily and do a job that I wouldn't want to do.

They have my support and deep appreciation, especially those on this forum who are current or past LE.

My hat is off to you.

Thank you for your service.

Flint.

[Geopagus]

Well....clearly this is an important and passionate subject, else it would not have generated 6 pages of replies and attracted 1,200 views.

Even though I am a bit dogmatic about certain aspects of CHL disarms, I want to make it clear that I am proud of the LEO that go out daily and do a job that I wouldn't want to do.

They have my support and deep appreciation, especially those on this forum who are current or past LE.

My hat is off to you.

Thank you for your service.

Flint.

Your kind words are very appreciated flintknapper. There are already enough people in society who dislike LEO's with a passion. I see it, hear it, and feel it everyday; I understand it because of the small percentage in Law Enforcement who do the profession an injustice, but also feel short changed for those of us who are trying to do our best.

[TX Rancher]

Your kind words are very appreciated flintknapper. There are already enough people in society who dislike LEO's with a passion. I see it, hear it, and feel it everyday; I understand it because of the small percentage in Law Enforcement who do the profession an injustice, but also feel short changed for those of us who are trying to do our best.

Geopagus:

I believe the issue for LEO’s is basically the same as it is for many public service groups (EMT’s, doctors, lawyers, military, etc.). The window into your organization for the majority of the public is through the mass-media, and they don’t make money on good news. They make money on uncovering the “bad side�, not reporting the “good side�.

The net result is the majority of the public’s view on LEO is drawn from very negative stories based on a few bad apples, and as a result, LEO’s can find themselves in the “un-trusted� category.

Discussions between LEO and non-LEO then almost always degrade into the us-vs-them tirade:

“I just want to go home at the end of the shift� vs “You knew the risks when you took the job�

“Civilians should show us respect� vs “LEO should show us respect�

“Not all LEO’s are bad� vs “Not all LEO’s are good�

It’s a no-win situation, and that won’t change anytime soon unless both sides are willing to take a step forward and give the other side some credit…but figure the odds on that happening

[Geopagus]

Your kind words are very appreciated flintknapper. There are already enough people in society who dislike LEO's with a passion. I see it, hear it, and feel it everyday; I understand it because of the small percentage in Law Enforcement who do the profession an injustice, but also feel short changed for those of us who are trying to do our best.

Geopagus:

I believe the issue for LEO’s is basically the same as it is for many public service groups (EMT’s, doctors, lawyers, military, etc.). The window into your organization for the majority of the public is through the mass-media, and they don’t make money on good news. They make money on uncovering the “bad side�, not reporting the “good side�.

The net result is the majority of the public’s view on LEO is drawn from very negative stories based on a few bad apples, and as a result, LEO’s can find themselves in the “un-trusted� category.

Discussions between LEO and non-LEO then almost always degrade into the us-vs-them tirade:

“I just want to go home at the end of the shift� vs “You knew the risks when you took the job�

“Civilians should show us respect� vs “LEO should show us respect�

“Not all LEO’s are bad� vs “Not all LEO’s are good�

It’s a no-win situation, and that won’t change anytime soon unless both sides are willing to take a step forward and give the other side some credit…but figure the odds on that happening

Very nicely said and all points very well taken. Thank you for your post.

[anygunanywhere]

I certainly hope no LEO was offended by anything in this thread. There may be some anti-LEO lurking here, but I think as a rule we members support law enforcement. I would expect the moderators to pounce on inapprpriate LEO attacks as readily as those fake four letter words.

Anygun

[KBCraig]

I appreciate the risks that police take, but I do get a bit tired of the worn-out cliche of "just trying to survive my shift".

When it comes to dangerous jobs, police officers don't even make the top 10 list. They might get more physical, and even get injured, but they don't get killed on the job nearly as often as people think. Farmers are more than twice as likely as police officers to die on the job.

[Keith B]

I appreciate the risks that police take, but I do get a bit tired of the worn-out cliche of "just trying to survive my shift".

When it comes to dangerous jobs, police officers don't even make the top 10 list. They might get more physical, and even get injured, but they don't get killed on the job nearly as often as people think. Farmers are more than twice as likely as police officers to die on the job.

That may be, but they have a lot more stressfull job than farmers in general. Farmers don't have to deal with the drunken, beligerant and rude person at 1:30 in the morning. Or not knowing wheather the next car you stop is going to be full of BG's just waiting to shoot you.