LEO saw the gun - Page 6

LEO saw the gun

This is a discussion on LEO saw the gun within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Well, if you want folks to comment and offer up an intelligent outsider opinion as to the situation that occurred then you need to provide ...

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 132

Thread: LEO saw the gun

  1. #76
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,423
    Well, if you want folks to comment and offer up an intelligent outsider opinion as to the situation that occurred then you need to provide as much factual, actual information as possible.

    Since none of us were there with you we can only comment on what you type as fact and we cannot speculate as to what you leave out.

    I'm sure that the entire event that transpired has you quite upset but, the graphic imagery of the event that you're attempting to create should be secondary to making certain that your story is inclusive of all the relevant facts.

    I would say that if your scenario (as you've related it) is what happened and that if the fact that the LEO firearm was pointed at your wife with the LEO finger on the trigger then you should absolutely get that issue resolved in any way possible.

    Would this all be on the LEO cruiser Vid Cam?
    If so then I would have your attorney request and review that and then go from there.
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ


  2. #77
    Senior Moderator
    Array limatunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    4,246
    Quote Originally Posted by LongRider View Post
    As I stated she had moved from the purse to assure a three year old did not get the gun. We, think a child's safety takes precedence over everything.
    I think if you polled the women on this forum you would find that almost all of us carry on our bodies at all times and we encourage other women to do the same.

    You have rightly and responsibly learned how off-body carry can be dangerous (little ones getting into purses).

    Even if your wife is going to consider continuing carrying off body I would recommend she invest in a good holster she can keep in the car, or around in some way that if it's necessary for her to take the gun from her purse to her body she can do it safely and securely so that this will never happen again.

    If she doesn't wear belts there are many holster out there with clips and other means of securing them to one's body. Even if a shoulder holster is not a viable option for all women, it's better than nothing, and certainly better than risking the gun falling out of pockets or slipping out of waist bands. Even an ankle holster would be better than nothing.

    Even if you hadn't been stopped, it could be possible that you could have exited your vehicle without realizing that the gun was no longer in your possession and left an unsecured, loaded gun, in plain sight in your vehicle.

    Yes, I'm glad that no one was hurt and that everything did get squared away. This is a situation to learn from.

    Someone once told me that experience comes from making mistakes and learning from them. This is your chance to evaluate everything that happened, learn from whatever mistakes you may have made, and make appropriate changes.

    Is there a way that your wife could consider on-body carry for the times when you feel the gun isn't secure in her purse? Could you possibly keep a separate holster in the car for such occasions? Could you install a car safe that the weapon can be secured in?

    There's not much YOU--personally--can learn from the Police Officer's mistakes because you can't control his future actions. You can only hope that he's evaluating his own mistakes and adjusting himself accordingly.

    This experience is a chance for YOU and your wife. Don't miss the opportunity to learn because you are angry.

  3. #78
    Member Array rscalzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Epping, NH
    Posts
    59
    Everything has been pretty well hashed out so I don't see the need to restate what has already been said.

    Just a few minor points....

    As eyewitness descriptions are notoriously inaccurate, I'd take the 5'4" comment to mean possibly mean 5'6" or 5'7". I had two patrol officers in that range, give or take an inch. One was a body builder who could kick anyones butt without breaking a sweat. The other spent five years as active US Army attached to the 82nd. Airborne as a paratrooper. He was one of the few chosen to make the jump into Sainte-Mère-Église in France a few years back during the anniversary. The point is, height doesn't matter, nor does it mean the officer is less than confident.

    We heard the description and what jumps out is the competent firearm's owner and CCW doesn't catch the difference between a magazine and a "clip". Minor yes but we are discussing details.

    How many here would go along unconcerned when they were confronted with two people, one in possession of a firearm unknown to them? We would be hearing the stories of how their firearm was drawn and they took the precautions to protect themselves. As it has been pointed out several times, there are ALWAYS two sides to any story.

    As far as taking it further, feel free to contact the department. Speaking for myself, I was always happy to sit down with anyone who had a perceived problem with my people and wanted to discuss it. Most likely there could be improvements on both sides. Maybe this isn't the first concern they have had with this emplyee. You could be doing them a favor. Maybe you have to re-think your methods of carrying a firearm as the way currently done it is less than effective.
    Last edited by limatunes; November 5th, 2007 at 10:52 AM. Reason: language
    Richard Scalzo, Capt.
    Secaucus PD
    Secaucus, NJ
    Retired !!!!

  4. #79
    VIP Member
    Array 64zebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Panhandle of Texas
    Posts
    6,452
    I have a few more comments since others have posted

    a LEO doesn't have a moderately dangerous job.....it IS a dangerous job, to downplay it by describing it as moderately dangerous is way off base. Did the officer probably make some mistakes in this, yes-as I stated in my earlier post...he most likely did and they should be addressed; but nobody should downplay the officer's intent....to find out whats going on and to go home safely, he had no idea who the people were or what they were doing. Now (based on the story told) could he have done some things differently, yes. Could the wife have done something differently, yes.

    I was pulled over once in college and when asked for my license/insurance I reached into my jacket pocket and no wallet, I looked down between the seat and on the floor, I don't see it, my buddy says to look up and about 2 feet away from my head I see a stainless 45 S&W barrel. He asked me to step out of the car, and as I do I said I'm sorry for whatever caused that, I just can't find my wallet. He says its ok, but if I'd pulled out a gun he was gonna blow my head off. I told him I'm not that stupid. He gave me a warning for not having my DL, etc and was cool with it all.

    Now, did I get all bent out of shape and ticked off or think he officer messed up? No, I screwed up by not telling him I couldn't find my wallet earlier in the stop and reaching around in the car looking for it. I made several mistakes-didn't have my wallet and didn't think about looking for it or telling the officer immediately. If I was in his shoes (or the leprechaun's in this story) I would have done the same thing (as in drawn weapon and secured situation, doesn't sound like the officer in this story followed proper procedure)

    Yes the OP should be upset with some of the officer's actions and the stop should be looked at for improving his actions in the future, but the OP should also learn from this, and I think he and his wife will.
    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?

  5. #80
    VIP Member Array jwhite75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    5,319
    I actually found the Two year old doing the pee pee dance quite amusing. Definitely file a complaint.
    Friends don't let friends be MALL NINJAS.


    I am just as nice as anyone lets me be and can be just as mean as anyone makes me. - Quoted from Terryger, New member to our forum.

  6. #81
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    LongRider, I think you and your wife were very fortunate, considering. Having the gun slip out, getting stopped in the first place, yes, that was bad luck/poor attention. But this is exactly the kind of situation you hear about ending with either a dead permit holder (rare) or more commonly, a mountain of charges and an even bigger mountain of legal fees over the course of several years, with no guarantee of being exonerated. All things considered, I think you lucked out.

    But, even if things could have ended up worse, they sure could have been better too. The bottom line is the officer threatened you and your wife with death when there had been no crime commited and no credible threat to him. Darn right you need to file a complaint!

    I wouldn't think sueing is in order, simply because you didn't get thrown in jail and you got all your property back, but his chief needs to hear about this, the officer needs to be quickly disciplined, and you need a formal written apology. Otherwise, he'll likely do it again and maybe kill someone.

    For everyone saying that the officer was justified in pulling his gun to ensure his own safety, why not use SWAT to do felony stops for every traffic offense? Isn't that the safest way to ensure that nobody who gets stopped will be able to harm an officer?

    But of course nobody suggests that, because it's not reasonable. So, why does it become reasonable to do it only when the officer finds an armed citizen? Merely being armed doesn't create a threat. I understand the disadvantage of reacting to an armed threat, but if you really want to use that reasoning to justify hostile life-threatening action against a non-threatening armed individual, then you find yourself back at the felony-stop-everybody conclusion.

    Another question (one that I don't know the answer to): Aren't felony stops only permitted when the officer has personally witnessed a felony in progress? (hence the name) If so, what was the felony here?
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  7. #82
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    Another question (one that I don't know the answer to): Aren't felony stops only permitted when the officer has personally witnessed a felony in progress? (hence the name) If so, what was the felony here?
    Felony stops are an over and often misused term... no, an officer does not need to witness a felony in order to do a felony stop. The felony part doesnt even really matter. Its the known danger involved in the stop... For example, I may know that a particular person has mental issues and has escaped from a mental hospital. I have reason to believe that person has armed themselves... No felony has been commited, but you bet your sweet behind I'm doing a felony stop when I find him.

    Now, lets look at the flip side... lets say a 70 year old woman is wanted on a felony PBC charge. (Passing Bad Checks) Am I going to do a felony stop? No, most likely not.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  8. #83
    Member Array rscalzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Epping, NH
    Posts
    59
    As we only have one side and the scenario is being inflated to include actions that possibly never happened and the creditability of the firearm's owner is in question in my mind, I have to point out two items that I disagree with:

    no crime committed and no credible threat to him.
    The sight of a firearm lying on the seat isn't a credible threat???? Get real..

    Aren't felony stops only permitted when the officer has personally witnessed a felony in progress? (hence the name) If so, what was the felony here?
    Maybe on a TV show they do it that way...In real life and in training, no. What is your decryption of a felony stop? Or is it something you heard and feel that the title is descriptive of the action itself?

    No one here probably acted perfectly. As anyone can file a complaint or sue winning is another matter. Just may be that the firearm owner in this case isn't that well trained by the fact that they did not even know where their firearm was at the moment. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that having one on display during a mv stop may cause a ruckus. What if it dropped out during the stay at the restaurant? And possibly left behind? As we only have the comments of the occupants of the mv, I seem to think they need more in the way of training if they wish to continue to exercise their right to carry a firearm in public.
    Richard Scalzo, Capt.
    Secaucus PD
    Secaucus, NJ
    Retired !!!!

  9. #84
    Senior Member Array cwblanco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Amarillo, Texas
    Posts
    835
    Quote Originally Posted by LongRider View Post
    My wife has a several carry purses. FYI, most women do not carry on belt holsters. Due to breasts most shoulder holsters are not a viable option for many women. As I stated she had moved from the purse to assure a three year old did not get the gun. We, think a child's safety takes precedence over everything. We are weird like that.

    My lawyer is well versed in Washington law. By giving him a retainer I have bet my freedom that he is the best lawyers anywhere. My opinion is based on his trial record. Washington is an open carry state except in municipalities that have specific prohibitions against open carry.
    To begin with, I certainly meant no disrespect to you. However, your first message on this subject suggests that you had some questions.

    All I know for certain is that in Texas and many other states your wife could face an action to revoke her permit because the handgun was not concealed, whether or not intentional. Perhaps the term "conceal" has a different meaning in Washington. My point is "who wants to go to court to prove that it was concealed or to prove an excuse for non-concealment." My thoughts were that perhaps this should be chaulked up to a bad experience, rather than stirring it so that the concealment issue comes up before the handgun licensing board.

    On the other hand, because your lawyer now has his retainer, he may need to do something to "earn it," but I will assume that the matters which I mentioned above were discussed with him fully before he was paid the retainer.

  10. #85
    Member Array ShadeAngel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    383
    Ok, I have read most, but not all of the posts and I have a question that I hope someone will be willing to answer.

    I am currently in training to get my P.O.S.T cert and it would seem to me based on what I have learned so far that in this situation there is grounds for a civil suit.

    The non-consent search was a violation of their fourth amendment rights since the arrest was invalid. Correct? The matter of the concealed guns and permits for this purpose is irrelevant.

    Please don't get me wrong, I was not there and I am not saying that's what should be done. I am just curious if I am correct. Or if I am not looking at it from the right point of view.
    "You can't shake the devils hand and say you were only kidding"

  11. #86
    Senior Member Array bzdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Seattle(ish), WA
    Posts
    749
    Quote Originally Posted by cwblanco View Post
    All I know for certain is that in Texas and many other states your wife could face an action to revoke her permit because the handgun was not concealed, whether or not intentional. Perhaps the term "conceal" has a different meaning in Washington.
    No, I think this is on-track for Washington as well. I think the discussion about being in the car makes it sound more complicated than it is. AFAIK, to be covered under our CCW, it must be CC. If covered under car transport, it must be out of sight. I'm no lawyer, but even if he technically squeaks by, I think it's pretty marginal.

    I think the best argument was that it was an unintentional mistake which appears to be what the LEOs at the scene appeared to conclude. AFAIK, it doesn't get much better than that.

    My point is "who wants to go to court to prove that it was concealed or to prove an excuse for non-concealment." My thoughts were that perhaps this should be chaulked up to a bad experience, rather than stirring it so that the concealment issue comes up before the handgun licensing board.
    This is exactly what I was trying to say, only you said it more clearly. Sometimes we get so upset about what others have done wrong we forget sometimes we have screwed up as well.

    -john


    [Disclaimer: I'm no expert!]

  12. #87
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,900
    Quote Originally Posted by ShadeAngel View Post
    Ok, I have read most, but not all of the posts and I have a question that I hope someone will be willing to answer.

    I am currently in training to get my P.O.S.T cert and it would seem to me based on what I have learned so far that in this situation there is grounds for a civil suit.

    The non-consent search was a violation of their fourth amendment rights since the arrest was invalid. Correct? The matter of the concealed guns and permits for this purpose is irrelevant.

    Please don't get me wrong, I was not there and I am not saying that's what should be done. I am just curious if I am correct. Or if I am not looking at it from the right point of view.

    There is very very very weak grounds for a civil suit, but it has nothing to do with the search. The search was fine.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  13. #88
    Member Array ShadeAngel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    There is very very very weak grounds for a civil suit, but it has nothing to do with the search. The search was fine.
    OK thanks!

    But I am unsure as to why the search was fine. The gun gave them probable cause even though it was legal?... because of plain view? It cannot be a search incident to an arrest.

    I don't mean to nag, just trying to wrap my head around all of the search rules.

    Thanks!
    "You can't shake the devils hand and say you were only kidding"

  14. #89
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,900
    Quote Originally Posted by ShadeAngel View Post
    OK thanks!

    But I am unsure as to why the search was fine. The gun gave them probable cause even though it was legal?... because of plain view? It cannot be a search incident to an arrest.

    I don't mean to nag, just trying to wrap my head around all of the search rules.

    Thanks!
    They had probable cause to believe a crime took place, and verified after the fact that permits were valid etc...
    "Just blame Sixto"

  15. #90
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    Felony stops are an over and often misused term... no, an officer does not need to witness a felony in order to do a felony stop. The felony part doesnt even really matter. Its the known danger involved in the stop...
    That makes sense. Thanks for clearing it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by rscalzo View Post
    The sight of a firearm lying on the seat isn't a credible threat???? Get real..
    Darn right it's not! Is the sight of a normal guy open carrying (assuming it's legal) as he walks down the street a credible threat? Should a passing officer draw on him, then disarm, handcuff, and search him, for that alone?

    That's exactly the mentality that lets anti's manipulate the emotions of sheep: that the gun itself is somehow "bad" and the mere sight of it is a deadly threat worthy of terror and overwhelming violence in response.

    I understand that traffic stops can be dangerous. I understand that every officer's first responsibility is to go home with no extra orifices. I even understand that knowing the guy in the car is armed can make an officer a littler un-nerved. But what I EXPECT from an officer is that he make an honest and reasonable assessment of the situation, of the legality of what he sees, and above all of the rights of the people he stops. The officer in the OP did not do this. He allowed his fear to overcome what should have been his reason and his training, and came very close to shooting someone without cause.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 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
  •  

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors