LEO input please.....

[rebelray84]

It's not about what's normal for you though.

Somehow I think just b/c a KNOWN LEGAL RIGHT isn't normal to you, won't convince a jury that you had probably cause if it went that far. Your expected to know the law that you are sworn to protect so I don't think that justifies your actions.

Simply carrying a gun, is not probable cause, and could cost an officer a lot of trouble if he decides to pursue an interaction with the gun carrier.

However I've seen plenty of LEO's who will accomplish the same thing that you are saying you would do, but never violate the gun owner. Like simply talking to the Citizen, not drawing their gun on him.

In my opinion, if you draw your gun on a Law Abiding citizen, simply b/c you are uncomfortable with the freedoms we have in this state and think that some of these freedoms are abnormal, your begging for something to go wrong. If anyone in the state draws a firearm on anyone else, they have the legal right to defend themselves from that person. However as your pointing out here, LEO's can do it just b/c they don't feel comfortable? Is the guy instantly supposed to feel SAFE and SECURE b/c an LEO in Uniform has a weapon pointed at him? What if his natrual reaction to someone pointing a gun at him, is to draw and fire. Now what? Now the LEO might have caused a **** storm.

I'm really trying to understand your mentality for declaring that you have the RIGHT as you said, to draw your weapon on someone who is doing something legal.

That is all I'm trying to figure out.

For others reading, it's this statement I'm trying to figure out, and I'm wondering what other LEO's think about this too.

SEE BELOW

Well how about what's normal for the public?It is NOT a normal everyday thing for a person to walk into most places of business openly armed.


Once again the confusion between probable cause and reasonable suspicion.I do know the law,evidently better than you.What type of jury are you talking about criminal or civil?If criminal we won't be there because I tried to charge you with something that's not illegal.If civil I bet whatever action I take will hold up because I had reasonable suspicion and reacted correctly based on whatever the circumstances were.

Again,depends on the circumstances.A simple call stating "clerk is concerned that there is someone in the store with 3 kids shopping and has a gun on his hip" is different from "Clerk says there is some wild eyed crazy looking person in her store acting weird and is packing a gun!" and will get a different response from LEO.

This part is just retarded.If a LEO has drawn his gun on you the LAST thing any sane person would do is go for a gun.

What right do I have?Same right as you to protect myself.

Again,it all depends on the circumstances.How it was called in,the location,the person in question who is OCing,his demeanor,dress,etc.A lot of things play into exactly how LEOs will respond to someone who is OCing or for that matter anyone on any call.

It is not black and white as y'all seem to think it is.Y'all seem to have the attitude that it's legal and you can do it ANYWHERE you want without anyone questioning.Well your wrong.

You scream about your rights,what about the rights of others?Police officers have the right to go about their duties safely and go home to their families at the end of the day.Store owners have the right to tell people they can't carry guns in there business.Citizens have the right to go about their daily lives without being scared of someone carrying a gun openly where it is not normal for someone to have a gun.What about their rights?Their rights be damned because they are ignorant and need to be taught better?

For the record I believe strongly in the right to keep and bear arms and would give up my life to defend that right.I have NEVER been sued in 21 years of wearing a uniform.If any of you came in contact with me on the street while I was on duty you would think I was one of the nicest most professional police officers you've ever met.I am "Officer Friendly" until the time comes to be not-so-friendly hard ass cop.I know when and where to be one or the other.I am not in the business of hassling honest law abiding folks nor violating any of their rights.If you come into contact with me on an official basis I will conduct myself within the law and the regulations of my department,I suggest if you are an honest law abiding citizen you conduct yourself as such.

 

[sraacke]

Citizens have the right to go about their daily lives without being scared of someone carrying a gun openly where it is not normal for someone to have a gun.

Actually, they don't. Their right to not be scared does not trump my right to carry my firearm. Their mental illness (and hoplophobia is a mental illness) is no reason to deny me my civil rights.
You, sir, are wrong.

 

[Hitman]

Well how about what's normal for the public?It is NOT a normal everyday thing for a person to walk into most places of business openly armed.

It is also not normal for Criminals to open Carry.

I do know the law, evidently better than you.What type of jury are you talking about criminal or civil?If criminal we won't be there because I tried to charge you with something that's not illegal.If civil I bet whatever action I take will hold up because I had reasonable suspicion and reacted correctly based on whatever the circumstances were.

If you say so.

Again,depends on the circumstances.A simple call stating "clerk is concerned that there is someone in the store with 3 kids shopping and has a gun on his hip" is different from "Clerk says there is some wild eyed crazy looking person in her store acting weird and is packing a gun!" and will get a different response from LEO.

This is what I was looking for Ray but not what you first stated.

This part is just retarded.If a LEO has drawn his gun on you the LAST thing any sane person would do is go for a gun.

What right do I have? Same right as you to protect myself.

HAHA Now Ray....... that is interesting.

Read that again please sir/.

If a LEO draws on me, I'd be considered by your opinion retarded for drawing as well and I'd agree to that too.

then you state;
You have the same right as me?
You absolutely DO NOT Ray. We do not have equal rights as you just said a few words before you said we do.

You can draw on me but I can't draw on you - You call that equal?

It is not black and white as y'all seem to think it is.Y'all seem to have the attitude that it's legal and you can do it ANYWHERE you want without anyone questioning.Well your wrong.

It might be wrong in your opinion, but it was sure the nature of the law when it was written. The nature of the Freedom is to have that Freedom WITHOUT infringement. So you can either allow such freedom to be expressed without infringement or deny it; according to you, you have that power.

Isn't that the goal/purpose for ALL FREEDOMS.
Freedoms should be FREE to participate in.

Freedoms ARE NOT privileges.

You scream about your rights,what about the rights of others?Police officers have the right to go about their duties safely and go home to their families at the end of the day.

As do we all.

Store owners have the right to tell people they can't carry guns in there business.

Apples and Oranges here. This is off topic, and no one here denies someone's personal property rights.

Citizens have the right to go about their daily lives without being scared of someone carrying a gun openly where it is not normal for someone to have a gun.What about their rights?Their rights be damned because they are ignorant and need to be taught better?

Show us then where their ignorance of the law and the right to not be offended is written in the state or federal law. C'mon Ray, you know that's crap.

Our laws are made with a sense of tolerance, or use to be at least.

If you are a tree huggin hippy that doesn't eat meat. Stay away from the Meat Counter in the grocery store. To say you want it removed would be liberal and in the spirit of what your saying above.

Just b/c someone doesn't understand or know better or doesn't LIKE something a particular Freedom, doesn't give them the right to deny someone else that freedom until they themselves are educated.

For the record I believe strongly in the right to keep and bear arms and would give up my life to defend that right.I have NEVER been sued in 21 years of wearing a uniform.If any of you came in contact with me on the street while I was on duty you would think I was one of the nicest most professional police officers you've ever met.I am "Officer Friendly" until the time comes to be not-so-friendly hard ass cop.I know when and where to be one or the other.I am not in the business of hassling honest law abiding folks nor violating any of their rights.If you come into contact with me on an official basis I will conduct myself within the law and the regulations of my department,I suggest if you are an honest law abiding citizen you conduct yourself as such.

Thanks for the intelligent peaceful dialogue. IT'S RARE around here.

 

[Kraut]

Cops have body mics. Only fair we do too. IF we didn't have to worry about violations of our rights we wouldn't have to worry about recording what happens. It's not just voice recorders. I know of at least one LOCAL member with a micro video recorder. Smile, Officer, you are on camera.

So you think the average citizen has that much need to be in fear of the police? C'mon guy, when you step outside your door each morning you actually live in dread of imminent violation of your rights by a cop? You expect it that much? Yours must be a very "wired" lifestyle, living in that much fear must make every trip to the market very nerve-wracking.

to question folks about their business, what they are doing in a particular place while performing a particular action, to determine if a law is being violated.

So you think it is a LEO's function to go around randomly stopping ( detaining) people and questioning them about their business? so by that logic cops have the right to just walk around and question people say shopping or eating dinner?

nramarine, I don't think anyone said anything about "random," if you look at the quote above that you questioned, it combines factors of action and location. It probably could have been stated more specifically and in depth, but it alludes to a phrase commonly used in reports and findings of probable cause, as well as precedent setting legal decisions from courts of varying levels up to and including the Supreme Court: "the totality of the circumstances." It refers to the combination of all factors involved that would lead a reasonable person under those same circumstances to believe a crime has been or is about to be committed. You seem to be stuck on the idea that everyone here who is a LEO is saying that they have a right, duty, and the intention to just automatically detain and harass anyone they see OCing, for that reason alone, but I haven't read anyone saying that at all. It's all about the specifics of any individual encounter that when considered together articulate a need to investigate further. Obviously, such investigation will involve questioning the person's activities. Once the reasonable suspicion that led to the encounter has been relieved, the contact should end. Again, as I've stated in a previous post in this thread, we have only the OPs side without any reference to any other factors observable by the officers that brought about the encounter.

On a side note, as for the thing about just walking up and interupting someone while they are eating, most cops will avoid that because they hate when people do it to them.

Actually, they don't. Their right to not be scared does not trump my right to carry my firearm. Their mental illness (and hoplophobia is a mental illness) is no reason to deny me my civil rights.
You, sir, are wrong.

+100%. We've received the occasional call about someone being seen walking down the sidewalk with a gun on their hip, all because the gun is there and the caller can only conceive the thought that it means "something's wrong" with the picture.

 

[RCRAMIE]

Could this whole argument be just a misunderstanding. I think the LEO are just not clear enough. The whole circumstances taking in is the reason for the interaction. OC just don't want the only reason a LEO interacts with a person is because of the OC.

 

[rebelray84]

Actually, they don't. Their right to not be scared does not trump my right to carry my firearm. Their mental illness (and hoplophobia is a mental illness) is no reason to deny me my civil rights.
You, sir, are wrong.

I never said it did.Read what I wrote again.A clerk in a store stating that she is afraid because there is a man with a gun does not neccessarily mean she is afraid of the gun but afraid of what he may do with it robbery,murder,whatever.Does that automaticlally mean she is mentally ill?Does being afraid of being robbed automatically make one mentallly ill?

Yes in Amite, the wally world, the exxon station, the winn dixie etc.

You openly carrried in Wal-Mart in Amite and do so on a regular basis?I don't think so,the managers of that particular store don't allow anyone,even off duty LEOs (badges showing BTW) to walk around openly carrying weapons.They have put more than one civilan and cop out for doing so,which is their right.

I said I was done with this thread pages ago and only got back in it because I was asked something directly.I have done so and stand by everything I have posted.Any other questions feel free to contact me directly.

 

[Bayoupiper]

I never said it did.Read what I wrote again.A clerk in a store stating that she is afraid because there is a man with a gun does not neccessarily mean she is afraid of the gun but afraid of what he may do with it robbery,murder,whatever.Does that automaticlally mean she is mentally ill?Does being afraid of being robbed automatically make one mentallly ill?



You openly carrried in Wal-Mart in Amite and do so on a regular basis?I don't think so,the managers of that particular store don't allow anyone,even off duty LEOs (badges showing BTW) to walk around openly carrying weapons.They have put more than one civilan and cop out for doing so,which is their right.

I said I was done with this thread pages ago and only got back in it because I was asked something directly.I have done so and stand by everything I have posted.Any other questions feel free to contact me directly.

Um, I have been in the Amite Wallyworld several times in plain clothes, with a holstered weapon, badge, and cuffs/mag pounch on and never had anyone so much as say boo to me.



.

 

[rebelray84]

Um, I have been in the Amite Wallyworld several times in plain clothes, with a holstered weapon, badge, and cuffs/mag pounch on and never had anyone so much as say boo to me.



.

Probably looked more the part of a "real police" with the cuffs/mag pouch and didn't attract the attention of a certain ahole manager.

 

[Renegade]

I don't personally OC, but I have no problem with it at all. Yes, I do think there are idiots out there who do it just to make a point and draw attention to themselves, and I do agree that those types paint gun owners in a bad light. However, I still don't think the LEOs should go harassing someone just because they are OCing. If someone's gun is illegal, I don't think they'll have it out for all to see anyway.

But, just like some of the LEOs on this board who tear down anyone who isn't "qualified" to post in a LEO thread, there are plenty of LEOs out there who think a non-LEO carrying a gun is trying to be some kind of "warrior," so they bully them and try to put them in their "place." Maybe it makes them look/feel tough? imo it makes them look weak.

Like bad judges legislating from the bench, there will always be bad LEOs out there harassing ordinary citizens who aren't breaking the law.

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.

 

[deafdave3]

Just got off the phone with Wal Mart corporate in Ark. They stated their policy is to follow state law, they are also aware of this issue and have instructed their managers to comply with corporate policy and state law.

Wow. This is a big deal because now anyone can OC in Wal-Mart and if they get kicked out by the managers, the OCer can call Bentonville and complain and the manager will lose his high-paying job.

 

[posse comatosis]

Great thread. Hotter than 10,000 Qurans going up in smoke.

 

[herohog]

Wow. This is a big deal because now anyone can OC in Wal-Mart and if they get kicked out by the managers, the OCer can call Bentonville and complain and the manager will lose his high-paying job.

Uh... No one said or intimated any such thing. They simply asked what WM's official stance was and got the answer. Nothing was said about firing anyone or punishing them in any way. All he did was go to the root source and get the definitive corporate and final answer as to weather OC is allowed or not in ANY Wal-Mart as far as the Headquarters is concerned. Let's not drag any more Red Herrings into this mess please.

 

[deafdave3]

Uh... No one said or intimated any such thing. They simply asked what WM's official stance was and got the answer. Nothing was said about firing anyone or punishing them in any way. All he did was go to the root source and get the definitive corporate and final answer as to weather OC is allowed or not in ANY Wal-Mart as far as the Headquarters is concerned. Let's not drag any more Red Herrings into this mess please.

Geez, don't have a cow, man. I was thinking about it from WM's point of view. Don't read into something that's not there.

 

[dzelenka]

Unless you have the ability to constantly scan 360 degrees constantly AND carry on with day to day functions open carry is retarded and for suckers. There are better ways to advocate the Constitution then making your self a FAT TARGET. I don't care if you are the Benny Hana of Smith and Wesson's and armed robber putting a bean in the back of your head while you wait in line to pay for your coke, on his way to robbing the register is faster then you. Cops carry op[en because it is a function of Office and a part of the UNIFORM. I would much rather work out of the bad with a concealed piece. Why add a reason to be violently attacked? A holstered gun is not a deterrent in fact it can be an attractant! Your tough guy, I can out draw Rob Leatham attitude is lame. Get a good holster and belt. Use a cover garment and allow yourself the option of blending in with the sheep when thats the prudent thing to do.

William Butler Hickok was one of the finest gunfighters of the old west. He was fast, accurate and an experienced man killer. However, none of that helped him when Jack McCall walked in unnoticed to within a few feet, suddenly drew a pistol, shouted, “Take that!”, and fired a bullet into the back of Hickok's head, killing him instantly. Vanilla Gorilla is right. Advertising that you are armed makes you a threat and therefore a prime target. Even a highly skilled pistolero doesn't stand a chance when he doesn't see it coming.

 

[sraacke]

William Butler Hickok was one of the finest gunfighters of the old west. He was fast, accurate and an experienced man killer. However, none of that helped him when Jack McCall walked in unnoticed to within a few feet, suddenly drew a pistol, shouted, “Take that!”, and fired a bullet into the back of Hickok's head, killing him instantly. Vanilla Gorilla is right. Advertising that you are armed makes you a threat and therefore a prime target. Even a highly skilled pistolero doesn't stand a chance when he doesn't see it coming.

Well, heck. If the prez of LSA says it is a bad idea then I guess I'll just have to reconsider everything. No more OC for me. How could I have been so wrong?

 

[Kraut]

So you think the average citizen has that much need to be in fear of the police? C'mon guy, when you step outside your door each morning you actually live in dread of imminent violation of your rights by a cop? You expect it that much? Yours must be a very "wired" lifestyle, living in that much fear must make every trip to the market very nerve-wracking.

So you think it is a LEO's function to go around randomly stopping ( detaining) people and questioning them about their business? so by that logic cops have the right to just walk around and question people say shopping or eating dinner?

Kraut, I don't mean a Leo can't walk up to me and ask me a few questions. Anyone can do that,however there is no legal standing to detain, disarm or arrest me with no other reason that I am oc'ing. my problem is with some people's perception that oc'ers can be detained, or arrested for oc'ing. My other problem is with the notion that LEO's can "draw down" on an oc'er for no other reason, than oc. That's highly improper and illegal. Don't misunderstand me, circumstances do play a part, if a guy's acting crazy or brandishing, rock out with your glock out and don't miss. However, if we take the op's post at face value ( in theory) than someone buying a coke, or shopping with their family should not be treated that way We are citizens not subjects.

Ps If you see someone in the store shopping for say, cereal with his family, minding his or her own business, not disturbing anyone, and the ONLY reason you gave him a second look is that he is legally open carrying, how would you react?

Read my post again and I think you'll have the answer to your question.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

Instead of OC think about how much better off we would be if we had a law like Vermont's where no CCP is required. Talk about a deterrent! Everybody in the state, over the age of 21 who isnt a mental patient or a felon, may or may not be armed! Now I could get behind that

 

[dzelenka]

Well, heck. If the prez of LSA says it is a bad idea then I guess I'll just have to reconsider everything. No more OC for me. How could I have been so wrong?

Yale,

You know that I support your right to OC as long as it is done responsibly and as a good ambassador for gun owners. However, I do believe that it places the carrier at a tactical disadvantage when compared to a concealed handgun in many situations. If you see the threat coming, you may be able to get to your pistol easier if it isn't concealed; but if the bad guy is allowed to initiate the fight on his terms, AND CHOOSES TO DO SO IN SPITE OF KNOWING YOU ARE ARMED, I believe that he will have already decided on a course of action that removes you as a threat. The quickest way to do that is to shoot you. This is what I believe. You are free to believe differently.

Dan

 

[RCRAMIE]

Instead of OC think about how much better off we would be if we had a law like Vermont's where no CCP is required. Talk about a deterrent! Everybody in the state, over the age of 21 who isnt a mental patient or a felon, may or may not be armed! Now I could get behind that

Because a criminal or mental patient won't use a gun or carry one if there is a law against it?

 

[PAPACHUCK]

I brought this thread into the world, and I say it's time for it to expire.

Anyone second this motion?

Thanks to all the LEO's here who provided valuable input, the quest from the beginning.