Police Etiquette - Page 4

Police Etiquette

This is a discussion on Police Etiquette within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Some of these "department procedures" are one of the reasons why LEOs are getting a bad rap, worse than ever before. The fact that officers ...

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 111
Like Tree55Likes

Thread: Police Etiquette

  1. #46
    Distinguished Member Array deadguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,810
    Some of these "department procedures" are one of the reasons why LEOs are getting a bad rap, worse than ever before. The fact that officers in that department don't stand up and say this isn't right or in some cases constitutional makes it that much worse, especially for the average law abiding citizen.

    In SC I will hand the permit along with my license to the officer because I am legally bound to do so. I cross the river to Georgia and I will not. My NH non res allowing me to carry in GA is not tied to my DL like my resident SC permit is.
    There's nothing like a funeral to make you feel alive


  2. #47
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,936
    It goes far beyond department policy. Department policy is driven a lot more by liability reduction than it is anything else. The law allows things like this to be done, and all it takes is one encounter where the officer does not go the extra mile to run a gun, double and triple check permits etc. and that gun does end up being stolen, used in crime etc. to get his city and agency wrapped up in a lawsuit nobody wants to try and defend.
    I'm not saying its right or wrong, I can see and agree with both sides on this. But I am saying that because of what we as a society as a whole has allowed ourselves to become, this is the bed we made and we have to lay in it. (for now anyway)
    lyz_grace likes this.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  3. #48
    VIP Member Array tokerblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,349
    If it's done for liability reduction, what happens when a citizen is disarmed and the LEO has a ND? There are so many different types of firearms out there with different manual of arms. Sadly, there are too many ND's now with LEO's and their own service arms.
    suntzu and TBob like this.

  4. #49
    Distinguished Member Array deadguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,810
    SIXTO as a concealed carry advocate and I assume a believer in the constitution, I hope you as an individual American think these department procedures are horse milarki.
    suntzu likes this.
    There's nothing like a funeral to make you feel alive

  5. #50
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,893
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    It goes far beyond department policy. Department policy is driven a lot more by liability reduction than it is anything else. The law allows things like this to be done, and all it takes is one encounter where the officer does not go the extra mile to run a gun, double and triple check permits etc. and that gun does end up being stolen, used in crime etc. to get his city and agency wrapped up in a lawsuit nobody wants to try and defend.
    I'm not saying its right or wrong, I can see and agree with both sides on this. But I am saying that because of what we as a society as a whole has allowed ourselves to become, this is the bed we made and we have to lay in it. (for now anyway)

    Respectfully I will just have to say this: 1: It is wrong 2:In the military, believe it or not, from the PFC asking why he has to clean the latrine to a 4 star general telling the president going into Iraq is stupid, people question the legality and morals of orders. (Not all the time and not every unit, so don't give me examples where soldiers are robots and obey blindly, I have plenty to prove otherwise). I believe you are a LEO from what I read before (if not sorry LOL)and you said "I'm not saying its right or wrong". I feel that a person with your experience would have a belief and state if it is right or wrong (respectfully).

    And sadly I agree with you about the reason. But since I have my tinfoil hat on today I will add this. From the LEOS's I know, they have no problems whatsoever with the trampling of our rights. They do not say it like that. But they use every excuse/reason there is for it. We live in a dangerous world, the officer is placing himself at risk, it is for everybody's safety, we need every advantage to get the bad guys. (I am not only talking about this, but other things like the way they do warrants and checkpoints to how the officer has the right to ask to search your vehicle. Either you have probable cause or not. If you don't, don't ask. But they know a lot of people will say OK to just get on their way). Sorry to stray off topic a tad.

    Upon reflection now, I ave decided, unless required by law, I will no longer offer anything to a LEO. I will be courteous. And I don't fault the officer. But I am sick of this country following blindly requests from people in authority, due to fear, convenience, or ignorance.
    TBob, Freedom Doc and NH_Esau like this.

  6. #51
    VIP Member
    Array 64zebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Panhandle of Texas
    Posts
    6,452
    This is always a touchy subject on our site. And fortunately so far, this thread is going quite well. Let's all work to keep it that way.

    I understand everyone's concerns with conduct on stops, informing vs. not, etc.

    Personally, I think its ridiculous for a state to make a law saying a CWP/CHL/CCW/[whatever license holder] is required to inform upon official contact. I don't know about the other 9 states with this law, but in Texas the folks without a CHL don't have to inform, and the dirtbags dang sure don't inform. Its totally asinine to me as a cop. Completely stupid. Thus is the world of the legislature trying to satisfy the persons that weren't totally sold on the concept of the CHL in Texas when the laws were made. Just feel good fluff crap.

    That being said, I do like having a CHL show me that card for reasons I stated in the other thread running
    Confronted by LEO while carrying
    I know that person isn't the dirtbag we're looking for.

    As far as policy for disarming, Texas law says officers MAY disarm, not shall or will. We don't have a dept policy covering this.
    99.9% of our dept is in favor of CHL and are big 2A supporters.

    I've never, and I've never seen any other officers, check serial numbers on a gun unless its been taken off a person in custody or found on a legal search or vehicle inventory after arrest (and none of this has ever happened here with a CHL).
    And someone mentioned LEOs don't run SN on other items....I beg to differ since I see more SN run on stereos, phones, and other electronics WAY more often than firearms.

    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu
    From the LEOS's I know, they have no problems whatsoever with the trampling of our rights. They do not say it like that. But they use every excuse/reason there is for it.
    if a LEO is truly trampling (read=violating) constitutional rights, then action needs to be taken against them. If they do things that are allowed by the constitution, laws, case law/interpretations, then the LEO is following the law but people may not like it.
    Some are upset that officers ask to search a vehicle, but an officer can't get consent unless it is given, they can't get a refusal unless it is given. I think an officer asking and being told no is better than just starting the search on their own and the person then having to tell them to stop.

    I know a big deal with folks here is the disarming thing. I've never seen a CHL disarmed here, never heard of one either. I was stopped 3 times before I became a cop and was never disarmed or searched. I do know it happens, but unless that CHL has done something else to warrant it, I think its stupid and a waste of officer's time.

    Its kind of funny, I stopped a car late last night, 58 yo female, handed me DL/insurance and said 'here, I have to show you this too' and gave me her CHL. I asked her what she carried and she said just a .22. I said, 'hey thats alright, whatever you like best, better to have something'. I told her that we like these (the cards) and thats when she said she usually only carries it with her when traveling. I said 'so you don't have it with you now?' and she said no. I then told her she didn't have to show me her CHL if she didn't have the gun with her and she just said ok. I wish all the instructors would make sure all their students know what is required and what isn't. (sorry for the sidetrack, just makes me a little upset) I told her that .22 might come in real handy just going to the store as she was, especially this time of night, not just on road trips.
    TBob, DocPMD and LenS like this.
    LEO/CHL
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "I got a touch of hangover bureaucrat, don't push me"
    --G.W. McClintock

    Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
    If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?

  7. #52
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,893
    Quote Originally Posted by 64zebra View Post
    if a LEO is truly trampling (read=violating) constitutional rights, then action needs to be taken against them. If they do things that are allowed by the constitution, laws, case law/interpretations, then the LEO is following the law but people may not like it.
    Some are upset that officers ask to search a vehicle, but an officer can't get consent unless it is given, they can't get a refusal unless it is given. I think an officer asking and being told no is better than just starting the search on their own and the person then having to tell them to stop.
    Sir, I would like to clarify a remark I made. By trampling I mean Law Enforcement as an institution, not as individuals. LEOS's do for the most part, like society, obey the rules and laws. And I am well aware that the rules sometimes put the officers in danger. But, when new gun laws are introduced that will hinder 2A rights who is usually at the podium with the mayor/governor? The police chief associations and sheriffs. When the new Castle doctrine bill was introduced in NH they were opposed to it. When it was passed they supported the Governors veto. They are against 2 other bills pending in NH (one just passed, going to senate). Officers ask all the time if they can inspect a vehicle, although not breaking any law or parts of the Constitution, I feel they are using a position of authority to gain access to that vehicle due to fear, ignorance of the driver. If I refuse which I have they let me go on my merry way. That is telling me they did not have probable cause and obviously could not have got a warrant. So why ask? Checkpoints are supported by police associations. This happens all over the country. So by being in support of anti-gun legislation, checkpoints, loosening of laws that weaken the 4th amendment, they in effect are "trampling" the Constitution.

  8. #53
    Member Array Michiganbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    26
    I believe it is required here in Michigan also. But either way let the person know. I've been pulled over here in West Michigan ( I need cruise control ) and the LEO's have all been professional and never a jerk. So I don't think it will be a problem. And as a side note for me being polite of the last 4 or 5 times I got stopped I just got a warning. Did I mention I need cruise control.

  9. #54
    sgb
    sgb is offline
    VIP Member Array sgb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    You don't need to know
    Posts
    2,414
    Only when LEGALLY required to do so, not the case in Florida.
    "There is a secret pride in every human heart that revolts at tyranny. You may order and drive an individual, but you cannot make him respect you." William Hazlitt (1778 - 1830)

    Best Choices for Self Defense Ammunition

  10. #55
    New Member Array hollowpoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    yakima wa
    Posts
    10
    i dont tell them that i am carrying and dont plan to i would never have any intention of hurting an officer my gun is for protection but i dont see why the would even need to know on a routine stop

  11. #56
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by hollowpoint View Post
    i dont tell them that i am carrying and dont plan to i would never have any intention of hurting an officer my gun is for protection but i dont see why the would even need to know on a routine stop
    Hi Hollowpoint and welcome!

    I really like your screen name
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  12. #57
    Member Array mrjam2jab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Levittown, PA
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by 64zebra View Post
    I've never, and I've never seen any other officers, check serial numbers on a gun unless its been taken off a person in custody or found on a legal search or vehicle inventory after arrest (and none of this has ever happened here with a CHL).
    And someone mentioned LEOs don't run SN on other items....I beg to differ since I see more SN run on stereos, phones, and other electronics WAY more often than firearms.
    But you don't run the SN of a cell phone simply because it was in the car during a traffic stop. That was the point in the previous post. An officer disarms the permit holder "for officer safety" during a routine car stop and then runs the SN to "make sure it's not stolen". That wouldn't happen with those electronic devices you mention.

  13. #58
    VIP Member
    Array 64zebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Panhandle of Texas
    Posts
    6,452
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjam2jab View Post
    But you don't run the SN of a cell phone simply because it was in the car during a traffic stop. That was the point in the previous post. An officer disarms the permit holder "for officer safety" during a routine car stop and then runs the SN to "make sure it's not stolen". That wouldn't happen with those electronic devices you mention.
    you're right, and if you read my whole post I said that I don't agree with this process either
    LEO/CHL
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "I got a touch of hangover bureaucrat, don't push me"
    --G.W. McClintock

    Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
    If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?

  14. #59
    VIP Member
    Array 64zebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Panhandle of Texas
    Posts
    6,452
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Sir, I would like to clarify a remark I made. By trampling I mean Law Enforcement as an institution, not as individuals. LEOS's do for the most part, like society, obey the rules and laws. And I am well aware that the rules sometimes put the officers in danger. But, when new gun laws are introduced that will hinder 2A rights who is usually at the podium with the mayor/governor? The police chief associations and sheriffs. When the new Castle doctrine bill was introduced in NH they were opposed to it. When it was passed they supported the Governors veto. They are against 2 other bills pending in NH (one just passed, going to senate). Officers ask all the time if they can inspect a vehicle, although not breaking any law or parts of the Constitution, I feel they are using a position of authority to gain access to that vehicle due to fear, ignorance of the driver. If I refuse which I have they let me go on my merry way. That is telling me they did not have probable cause and obviously could not have got a warrant. So why ask? Checkpoints are supported by police associations. This happens all over the country. So by being in support of anti-gun legislation, checkpoints, loosening of laws that weaken the 4th amendment, they in effect are "trampling" the Constitution.
    keep in mind the LEOs you see in uniform with a politician are in bed with them one way or another and as a general rule do not represent what street LEOs believe (in most states....in anti-gun states I'm not so sure)
    almost all, if not all, national police chiefs associations/sheriff's associations have liberal policies, which the LEOs on the street despise, not much we can do about that, I hate it when I see that crap because we LEOs working somewhere besides a desk know that the laws they support or when they oppose good gun laws, its complete BS, I get so frustrated seeing victims that could have protected themselves

    I won't get into checkpoints because they've been discussed on here and it usually ends of getting out of hand
    all I'll say is everyone has the right to refuse searches etc and go on your merry way

    if you feel an officer asking for consent is misusing a position of authority I'm sorry, but its following the law and is not trampling anything; they have the constitutional right to say no and have to be let go on their way, same thing for a LEO at the door of a house, they can be told to pound sand, been there done that,
    and fyi, a search warrant is not needed in cases where probable cause exists to search a vehicle, if its a house or other building on the other hand....yes, just a side note

    no LEO I've ever known is in support of loosening the 4th amendment

    you say why ask? about a month ago I stopped a car late at night, got both guys out in separate squad cars (didn't have DL or any other type of ID on him), got consent to search, immediately looked under driver seat and saw pipe and small bag of weed, driver now tried to withdraw consent of searching and was told I now have probable cause to search the vehicle and he couldn't refuse it now, in the back seat and trunk we found 20 car stereos, some ipods, cameras, a couple of guns, power tools...all stolen
    I'm sure the owners of all that property appreciate us getting consent to search a vehicle which led to them getting their property back, and the public appreciates that felon getting yanked off the street and back in jail where he needs to be, thats why we ask, its how we do our job in catching the real criminals, I know thats not an answer that will make you change your mind and all, but its from my perspective, and I know that some gun owners have been treated in a manner that you and I find insulting and rude, and I despise it as much, if not more, than you do

    we get told no just as much as we get told ok,
    Joe Blow has the right to refuse it and go on his merry way (no I did not mean to make that rhyme)

    I understand where you're coming from and agree with you on about 95% of that post
    we can all agree that laws against the 2A are not beneficial and IMO any cop that is against people owning guns is in a way against the people he is trying to help and protect just like the politicians are that make such laws, we all need to be able to protect ourselves when its happening, not wait a few minutes on 911
    LEO/CHL
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "I got a touch of hangover bureaucrat, don't push me"
    --G.W. McClintock

    Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
    If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?

  15. #60
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,893
    Quote Originally Posted by 64zebra View Post
    I understand where you're coming from and agree with you on about 95% of that post
    we can all agree that laws against the 2A are not beneficial and IMO any cop that is against people owning guns is in a way against the people he is trying to help and protect just like the politicians are that make such laws, we all need to be able to protect ourselves when its happening, not wait a few minutes on 911
    Well, at least we are closer now LOL. I want everyone to be safe. LEOS must hate You Tube these days with all the negative videos about ya LOL
    And I have to throw this in for fun:
    Just like a bad guy will not say he is carrying a weapon to a LEO and law abiding will, a good LEO gives us good stories of LEO's and bad LEO's won't post on this forum when they break the rules during a stop

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

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
  •  

Search tags for this page

concealed carry etiquette
,
concealed carry etiquitte
,
concealed carry rules in pennsylvania when pulled over in auto
,

etiquette for police

,
handgun instructors, floyd co, indiana
,
law enforcement etiquette
,
pennsylvania gun carrying etique
,

police etiquette

,
police officer etiquette
,
policeman etiquette
,
proper etiquette for a chl pull over
,
vehicle code 133655
Click on a term to search for related topics.