Question about the "guy jumped out of the dark" thread

Question about the "guy jumped out of the dark" thread

This is a discussion on Question about the "guy jumped out of the dark" thread within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I am a little curious as to why the police made the homeowner "secure his weapon" before talking to him. What would you do in ...

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 69

Thread: Question about the "guy jumped out of the dark" thread

  1. #1
    New Member Array wolverine1856's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    S.E. Michigan
    Posts
    9

    Question about the "guy jumped out of the dark" thread

    I am a little curious as to why the police made the homeowner "secure his weapon" before talking to him. What would you do in this situation. I understand making the officer more comfortable, but I am at my home and well within my rights to carry concealed or open. After all I am a law abiding citizen who is not doing anything against the law.

    My first reaction would have been to say no. I know this situation is very different, but when I read the post I "felt" the same gut reaction as when a store has a no guns sign. I say "no, I will not give up my rights" and take my business elsewhere.

    What say you?


  2. #2
    Ex Member Array BikerRN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    State of Discombobulation
    Posts
    5,253
    It's your castle, but you are the one that called for the knights to ride forth and defend the castle.

    Therefore they are well within their rights and legal precident to tell you to disarm. It's no longer your sandbox. You ceded said sandbox to them when you called 911. It is now theirs, and you will play by their rules.

    If you don't want to play by those rules, don't call 911.

    Biker

  3. #3
    Moderator
    Array buckeye .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    7,728
    My general thoughts on the topic, and I'm pretty sure you mean Jahwarrior's thread, if I'm wrong, lemme know.

    It pretty much is an officer safety/putting the officer at ease in my mind. The body and mind go through a lot of changes when faced with a situation like that. The adrenaline and whatnot can make people more "excitable" and jumpy. So I can it from that issue.

    Also, in my mind, once the police are there, they are pretty much responsible for your safety (Liberal: Why do you need to carry a gun? CC'er: Because a cop is to heavy to carry.)

    Just my thoughts.
    Fortes Fortuna Juvat

    Former, USMC 0311, OIF/OEF vet
    NRA Pistol/Rifle/Shotgun/Reloading Instructor, RSO, Ohio CHL Instructor

  4. #4
    New Member Array wolverine1856's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    S.E. Michigan
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by BikerRN View Post
    It's your castle, but you are the one that called for the knights to ride forth and defend the castle.

    Therefore they are well within their rights and legal precident to tell you to disarm. It's no longer your sandbox. You ceded said sandbox to them when you called 911. It is now theirs, and you will play by their rules.

    If you don't want to play by those rules, don't call 911.

    Biker
    Can you site the law ("thier right") and legal precedent you are refering to? I would like to read it. I did not realize I had to give up my 2A rights when filing a police report and would like to be positive if the situation were to present itself.

    Is it the same if I am in public someplace other than my home? Where would I secure such weapon in that situation?

    Wasn't there a court case that said police are not responsible for your safety?

  5. #5
    Ex Member Array BikerRN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    State of Discombobulation
    Posts
    5,253
    Quote Originally Posted by wolverine1856 View Post
    Can you site the law ("thier right") and legal precedent you are refering to? I would like to read it. I did not realize I had to give up my 2A rights when filing a police report and would like to be positive if the situation were to present itself.

    Is it the same if I am in public someplace other than my home? Where would I secure such weapon in that situation?

    Wasn't there a court case that said police are not responsible for your safety?
    I'm not going to go digging through thousands of cases, but I'll narrow it down for you.

    It's called Officer Safety.

    The courts have routinely upheld that an officer may disarm you during his or her interaction with you for their safety. If you don't like that, don't call 911.

    Biker
    Last edited by BikerRN; August 3rd, 2009 at 04:01 AM. Reason: typo

  6. #6
    New Member Array wolverine1856's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    S.E. Michigan
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by BikerRN View Post
    I'm not going to go digging through thousands of cases, but I'll narrow it down for you.

    It's called Officer Safety.

    The courts have routinely upheld that an officer may disarm you during his or her interaction with you for their safety. If you don't like that, don't call 911.

    Biker
    Your statement without a cite is appreciated. I tried to search around "officer safety + disarm during encounter" and I am not coming up with much. I will keep looking though.

    You may be correct but again I want to be positive and I can't do that without a cite. I asked for opinons and you gave yours. Thanks for the insight.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Array JohnK87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Hastings, MN
    Posts
    600
    Terry vs. Ohio Review of the terry vs. ohio case

    Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, and was sentenced to one to three years. The gun and ammunition confiscated by the police offer was used as evidence in the trial. The defense had filed a pre-trial motion to have the evidence suppressed. Any evidence found as the result of an illegal search, in this case the gun, would not be admissible. However, first the search needed to be deemed illegal. The motion was denied, as the judge felt that on the basis of the officer’s experience, he had cause to conduct an interrogation, therefore not violating Terry’s fourth amendment rights. Upon the outcome of the trial, the defense appealed to the Supreme Court.


    The main question the Supreme Court had was whether Terry’s right to personal security was violated by an unreasonable search and seizure. First, the Court decided that any time an officer restrains a person’s ability to walk away, he is seized. The Court also said that a patting of outer clothing is indeed a search. Therefore, the judgment here is as to whether or not the actions were considered reasonable. They went on to state that when practical, police must have probable cause, and a warrant to perform a search. However, during on-the-spot observations during a beat, it is not practical for an officer to obtain a warrant. Yet, good faith alone cannot be enough to determine a situation unpractical, and to override these regulations. The Court believed that the actions the officer witnessed were enough to allow the officer to reasonably suspect the men could have been armed. The search was carefully restricted to the outer clothing where a weapon may have been located. On the one man where no weapon was found, the officer discontinued his search. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction to Terry.


    The outcome of this case causes repercussions that are not obvious to some. A police officer now has the right to detain and search any individual, without a warrant, or even probable cause, as long as he or she can justify a suspicion that the individual may be armed. Also, anything the officer feels during that pat down may then be used as probable cause, allowing the officer to complete a full search. Since Terry v Ohio, other cases have come before the Supreme Court that have extended the power of the “stop and frisk”, extending that power to “frisk” cars, for example. Whenever the judiciary “creates” law, it can and will cause controversy, and this is no exception.
    ---

    In the OP case, he already stated to dispatch that he was armed, and they directed him to disarm before the police came. Since the police know he was armed, they may verify he is unarmed as part of the encounter. I'm not a lawyer OR cop, but that is my understanding of it.
    ‎An enemy of liberty is no friend of mine. I do not owe respect to anyone who would enslave me by government force, nor is it wise for such a person to expect it. -- Isaiah Amberay

  8. #8
    Ex Member Array BikerRN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    State of Discombobulation
    Posts
    5,253
    Quote Originally Posted by wolverine1856 View Post
    Your statement without a cite is appreciated. I tried to search around "officer safety + disarm during encounter" and I am not coming up with much. I will keep looking though.

    You may be correct but again I want to be positive and I can't do that without a cite. I asked for opinons and you gave yours. Thanks for the insight.
    I can tell you this one,

    My state has a law that basically states refusal of a "reasonable request" by any state certified LEO is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

    No, I will not cite that either, as that would give my location. I'm willing to bet however that many states have a very similar law. I'm also willing to bet that any jury, prosecutor or judge would see a request to disarm as "reasonable".

    Take care and stay safe.

    Biker

  9. #9
    Ex Member Array BikerRN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    State of Discombobulation
    Posts
    5,253
    Thank you John.

    I'm not a cop, but I am a LEO.

    I was thinking of cases more recent than Terry, and locally. In fact I was so busy thinking of the small picture that I totally forgot the big picture. I guess that's what happens when I try to post after getting off work.

    Take care and stay safe.

    Biker

  10. #10
    VIP Member
    Array Saber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona
    Posts
    2,591
    This thread sorta got technical in hurry. Anyway, if I were still a LEO and ended up at a caller's doorstep, I would want the caller to be unarmed during my visit. Too many times, things turn ugly and an officer is shot.
    Regards,
    “Monsters are real and so are ghosts. They live inside of us, and sometimes they win.”
    ~ Stephen King

  11. #11
    Member Array oldogy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    East TN&OH
    Posts
    303
    If the police are "on site" they are the ones responsible for my safety. I carry a gun to protect myself when the police are "just minutes away." Had I reported the situation as I remember it I would willingly secure my guns prior to the police arriving.
    oldogy
    Government is out of control
    "If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying -- " Sen Orrin G. Hatch

  12. #12
    New Member Array wolverine1856's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    S.E. Michigan
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnK87 View Post
    Terry vs. Ohio Review of the terry vs. ohio case

    Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, and was sentenced to one to three years. The gun and ammunition confiscated by the police offer was used as evidence in the trial. The defense had filed a pre-trial motion to have the evidence suppressed. Any evidence found as the result of an illegal search, in this case the gun, would not be admissible. However, first the search needed to be deemed illegal. The motion was denied, as the judge felt that on the basis of the officer’s experience, he had cause to conduct an interrogation, therefore not violating Terry’s fourth amendment rights. Upon the outcome of the trial, the defense appealed to the Supreme Court.


    The main question the Supreme Court had was whether Terry’s right to personal security was violated by an unreasonable search and seizure. First, the Court decided that any time an officer restrains a person’s ability to walk away, he is seized. The Court also said that a patting of outer clothing is indeed a search. Therefore, the judgment here is as to whether or not the actions were considered reasonable. They went on to state that when practical, police must have probable cause, and a warrant to perform a search. However, during on-the-spot observations during a beat, it is not practical for an officer to obtain a warrant. Yet, good faith alone cannot be enough to determine a situation unpractical, and to override these regulations. The Court believed that the actions the officer witnessed were enough to allow the officer to reasonably suspect the men could have been armed. The search was carefully restricted to the outer clothing where a weapon may have been located. On the one man where no weapon was found, the officer discontinued his search. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction to Terry.


    The outcome of this case causes repercussions that are not obvious to some. A police officer now has the right to detain and search any individual, without a warrant, or even probable cause, as long as he or she can justify a suspicion that the individual may be armed. Also, anything the officer feels during that pat down may then be used as probable cause, allowing the officer to complete a full search. Since Terry v Ohio, other cases have come before the Supreme Court that have extended the power of the “stop and frisk”, extending that power to “frisk” cars, for example. Whenever the judiciary “creates” law, it can and will cause controversy, and this is no exception.
    ---

    In the OP case, he already stated to dispatch that he was armed, and they directed him to disarm before the police came. Since the police know he was armed, they may verify he is unarmed as part of the encounter. I'm not a lawyer OR cop, but that is my understanding of it.

    Here is what I recently found that applies in Michigan, not sure about other states. I think this is a little more applicable than the other case by itself.

    Enforcement Guidelines

    Where a police officer receives a report that a person is in possession of a firearm, but the weapon is not visible to the officer, the following options are available:

    • Engage in a voluntary contact and simply ask the person if he or she has a firearm.
    • If he or she confirms he or she is in possession of a gun, the officer may ask the person to voluntarily hand it over just while the interview takes place, or insist that they hand it over if there is a reasonable belief that the safety of the officer or public is in jeopardy, or that the person has used it in a crime or is about to do so.
    • If the person denies having a firearm or refuses to answer, and the officer does not otherwise have (legally sufficient) reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the officer must allow the person to continue on his or her way.
    • If the person denies having a firearm or refuses to answer, but the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and presents a danger to the officer or public, the officer may conduct a stop and frisk the person. If the officer finds a weapon, the officer may hold it while conducting the field inquiry. As long as the person is properly licensed, and no arrest takes place, the officer must return the gun at the conclusion of the interview.
    • If the officer has a warrant or has probable cause to arrest the person for a crime, the officer may conduct a thorough search (not merely a frisk) and take possession of any weapon.
    • Where the person appears to be a minor and therefore too young to have firearm (in most states), the police may have reason to believe that a crime is being committed (unlawful carrying of a firearm) and may therefore conduct a stop rather than a mere encounter.

    1 See, for example, Com. v. Couture, 407 Mass. 178, 552 N.E.2d 538 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 951, 111 S. Ct. 372, 112 L.Ed.2d 334 (1990).
    2 Id.
    3 See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (196 4 Com. v. Alvarado, 423 Mass. 277, 667 N.E.2d 856 (199 .
    5 Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2. 301 (1990).
    6 Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S. Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000).
    7 Pennsylvania v. D.M., U.S. 120 S. Ct. 203, 146 L.Ed.2d 953 (2000).
    8 Id.
    9 Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 1105 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990); U.S. v. Diallo, 29 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 1994); U.S. v. Taylor, 162 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 199 .

    This information was copied from Michigan Open Carry: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/13328.html



    I guess I am obligated to comply but it still doesn't feel right. I guess being the good witness and reporting a crime forces you to give up your 2A rights for a bit. Seems wrong.
    Last edited by wolverine1856; August 3rd, 2009 at 08:20 PM. Reason: Take out false info and add facts from another source.

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array hogdaddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    N/E Florida
    Posts
    3,311
    I would simply take firearm outof holster place on table, walk outside give info ; )
    A Native Floridian = RARE


    IT'S OUR RIGHTS>THEY WANT TO WRONG
    H/D

  14. #14
    Senior Member Array taseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Boca Raton, FL
    Posts
    911
    put it on the counter, if the BG come, and the cops can't react or defend u, grab ur RIFLE lol

  15. #15
    Senior Member Array JohnK87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Hastings, MN
    Posts
    600
    Big picture, we all want to go home at the end of the day. I carry so I can, and I put it down when the police arrive so they can too.
    ‎An enemy of liberty is no friend of mine. I do not owe respect to anyone who would enslave me by government force, nor is it wise for such a person to expect it. -- Isaiah Amberay

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. RVA-"Youtube Beating" wives lifelong friend got jumped (link to news)
    By Ghettokracker71 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 28th, 2011, 09:05 PM
  2. "danced around the officers," jumped into their cruiser and sped off.
    By DaveH in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: March 4th, 2009, 01:40 AM
  3. HELP! The "Dark Side" of the force is so strong!
    By Thumper in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: October 13th, 2006, 04:39 AM