LEO input please.....

[Kraut]

[Maybe this kid was "asking for it" (for lack of a better term),

How exactly was he "asking for it"? Carrying a firearm in itself does not constitute a crime or even probable cause for questioning ( under the law) so what else in his behavior warranted such unprofessional ( and illegal) attention?

We don't know because he didn't tell us. Subsequently, you don't "know" if the officers were really unprofessional or acted illegally. If we "knew" that all he did was buy a Coke, then we would "know" more facts for certain about the interaction. In reality, despite all of the wonderful debate that has stirred on this thread, all we really "know" is that someone posted a story on the internet, and we "know" as individuals how we feel in reaction to that story.

I particularly like when the debate enters the ABSOLUTE FREEDOM area. It's amusing to consider how people who think their freedom is absolute think that only applies to them, because no one else has an absolute right to do whatever infringes upon their freedoms. Maybe it's not always a government's place to enact or enforce restrictions on freedoms, but it is our own individual responsibility to reasonably limit our own freedoms at someone else's door/property line/personal space if we expect the same from them.

 

[f350drvr]

Neither of us were there, for all you know the kid could be making the whole thing up. You read the story on the internet.

I beat Michael Jordan in a game of Horse last week.

It's got to be true, you just read it on the internet.

 

[JR1572]

Neither of us were there, for all you know the kid could be making the whole thing up. You read the story on the internet.

I beat Michael Jordan in a game of Horse last week.

It's got to be true, you just read it on the internet.

+1!

JR1572

 

[VeedUp]

Not saying this kids story is true, but I've herd on several occasions that the STPSO has been very unprofessional and shady during stops.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Stopping a guy without probable cause is one thing. But sticking a gun in a guy's face is another. TAs far as the difference between the first and second ammendments go, there are no degrees of rights. You either have a right to do something or not. Point is the LEO in question acted entirely inappropriate, possibly even illegally. The young man in question bought a coke. Exercising one right is NO different from exercising another. This issue is a question of law, he did nothing illegal or threatening in any way and had a gun pulled on him. What if the cop had been undercover? If this cop had shot this young man, then what?

ps. So I guess you don't remember cops with firehoses, riot gear and dogs, over political speach? When only police carry guns, you have a police state. No thank you.

NRAMARINE, he brother, i met you before...at a LOCAL meeting, so I know you are a good dude and you know I am not exactly anti-OC, but you are falling victim to two of the largest issues surrounding this and most other gun debates...

1. There is a difference between how it SHOULD be and how IT IS (aka Real World vs. Perfect World)
While I agree there SHOUD be no difference in someone wearing a certain shirt and carrying a firearm, the reality is that THERE IS. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous and borders on lunacy.
Why? Because the reality is that there is not a public fear (albeit unjustified) of T-shirts with Jesus on them like there is for firearms. there are not multi-billion dollars lobbies for and against T-shirts like there is for firearms. And most importantly, IN THE REAL WORLD, there is no immediate and realistic physical danger from a T-Shirt the same as their is for a firearm. (save me the whole inanimate object, people kill people, safety, etc....straws)

i am sorry, but firearms and ANYTHING else simply are not directly relational no matter how hard you try.

2. Failure to factor the human element- You are forgetting
to factor in the human element into your argument. If two computers were having this argument then yes, it wold be a draw, because on a binary level, there is no difference between a T-shirt and a gun. However, we do not live in a binary world. Emotions, experience, intelligence, ego, attitude, education, greed, and the whole gamete of human emotions, characteristics and traits all mix into the equations.

I see what you are trying to do with all of your analogies, but they do not hold water.

There should be no difference between a black man and a white man---but there is in real life.

There should be no difference between a fat chick and a hot chick applying for a job at Victoria Secret---but t here is

Carrying a gun SHOULD illicit the same public response as carrying an ice cream cone--but in real life it does not.

all mean are created equal---but are not treated equal in real life.

Furthermore, your ascertation that the cop actes "inappropriately and possibly illegally" is ignorant as unless you are a LEO at his department, you have NO IDEA what would be appropriate and legal for him as you do not know his policy. It may seem excessive or inappropriate to you, just like some people believe that carrying a gun openly is insane and possibly illegal. DOes not make it anymore true than what you believe.

Just saying brother, live in the now and work within that reality instead of insisting on another.

 

[Sin-ster]

[Maybe this kid was "asking for it" (for lack of a better term),

How exactly was he "asking for it"? Carrying a firearm in itself does not constitute a crime or even probable cause for questioning ( under the law) so what else in his behavior warranted such unprofessional ( and illegal) attention?

That's why I said "for lack of a better term". As others have stated in reply, there's no telling how much of the story is true, or exactly what details have been left out. For all we know, he could have been fiddling with the firearm while giving the officer the stink eye. He may have been acting oddly to begin with. He may have been high. There might have been a BOLO for someone bearing the exact same description, for some type of gun crime.

"Asking for it" was about as good of a term as I could come up with, although it's certainly not the typical interpretation that I intended-- hence the quotes, and the subsequent qualification-- for lack of a better term. In any event, it's a serious situation and I tend to do one of two things when hearing a story. Either (1) I give the officer the benefit of the doubt, or (2) wonder how much fiction is woven into the tale.

Obviously, and I think we can all agree on this-- if it went down just like the kid says it did, the whole thing is scary and down right appalling. However, something just doesn't smell right. In every other instance that we hear of LEO "causing someone problems" over OC, I can't recall one instance where the citizen was staring down the barrel of a gun. This might just be that one terrible instance, but without more concrete evidence, it's a bit hard to swallow.

 

[RCRAMIE]

As a cop I agree with NOLACOP 100%.

Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you encounter.


As a former member of the Jack Strain JBT Club I can say there is a high level of ignorance as to the firearms laws in Louisiana. Not just OC, but also CCW, and Vehicle possession issues. This is a training issue, no more, no less. Deputies are not walking the streets looking to take guns away from law abiding citizens, they just have no real comprehention of the law. Kind of like me with spelling. Most LEOs are not gun guys, so they don't know the ins and outs of OC, CCW, and all. Most only carry at work and thats it.

At the end of the day though, the officer has the ultimate right of way when it comes to ensureing his safety and that of others in the area. If that means he wants to disarm you, very well, you'll get over it, and if not, at least the LEO was able to conduct his stop in a safe manner.

You have to remember, as NOLACOP said, good people have bad days. Ultimately as a LEO, I don't know you from Adam, so I take every precaution to be safe in dealing with you untill I deam you are not a threat. If you are offended by that, you need to grow up and take a look around at the world we live in.

And as for the OC kid finding a resolution, Good luck. Jack don't care, so unless you have an army of lawyers and an unlimited legal budget, or can get the local media, GOA, NRA and the ACLU on his ass, your pissing up a rope. Sorry you got your fealing hurt, but it is what it is.

Sorry haven't finished reading the thread but had to quote this one I agree its a training issue. Im not comment on anything but this post right now, but the officers lack of training does not make a violation of rights ok and something to just deal with as you said.

 

[machinedrummer]

Only cops and bad guys should be allowed to have guns.

 

[rdy2run]

Bottom line, go ahead and break the law and violate someone's civil rights. Because that's what this is about, you will be sued, you will lose, and whoever you hassle will continue to open carry. Open carry is legal, PERIOD. That jack@$$ Mark Marchiafarva is riding around on a new Harley compliments of the Gonzales pd. So go ahead, arrest someone for open carry. You will quickly find out that you are not above the law. nramarine is right about one thing, either something is legal or it isn't. All rights are created equal, that's the difference between rights and priveledges.

PS, Nolacop, so what you're saying about threats is you draw down on everyone you percieve as a threat? Interesting, being armed ( openly ) doesn't make you a threat. Everyone is a potential threat. Armed or not.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Bottom line, go ahead and break the law and violate someone's civil rights. Because that's what this is about, you will be sued, you will lose, and whoever you hassle will continue to open carry. Open carry is legal, PERIOD. That jack@$$ Mark Marchiafarva is riding around on a new Harley compliments of the Gonzales pd. So go ahead, arrest someone for open carry. You will quickly find out that you are not above the law. nramarine is right about one thing, either something is legal or it isn't. All rights are created equal, that's the difference between rights and priveledges.

PS, Nolacop, so what you're saying about threats is you draw down on everyone you percieve as a threat? Interesting, being armed ( openly ) doesn't make you a threat. Everyone is a potential threat. Armed or not.

No, that is not what I am saying. Bottom line.

You kids are crazy....LOL

ETA--MEM has a BMW...just saying.

 

[charlie12]

Bottom line, go ahead and break the law and violate someone's civil rights. Because that's what this is about, you will be sued, you will lose, and whoever you hassle will continue to open carry. Open carry is legal, PERIOD. That jack@$$ Mark Marchiafarva is riding around on a new Harley compliments of the Gonzales pd. So go ahead, arrest someone for open carry. You will quickly find out that you are not above the law. nramarine is right about one thing, either something is legal or it isn't. All rights are created equal, that's the difference between rights and priveledges.

PS, Nolacop, so what you're saying about threats is you draw down on everyone you percieve as a threat? Interesting, being armed ( openly ) doesn't make you a threat. Everyone is a potential threat. Armed or not.

It's not a Harley

 

[charlie12]

No, that is not what I am saying. Bottom line.

You kids are crazy....LOL

ETA--MEM has a BMW...just saying.

When did he get a BMW?

 

[Nolacopusmc]

When did he get a BMW?

His GPD bike that he got is a BMW...my bad, it was a Kawasaki...

 

[spanky]

No, that is not what I am saying. Bottom line.

You kids are crazy....LOL

ETA--MEM has a BMW...just saying.

He's not a kid.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

He's not a kid.

awesome

 

[Hardballing]

Bottom line, go ahead and break the law and violate someone's civil rights. Because that's what this is about, you will be sued, you will lose, and whoever you hassle will continue to open carry. Open carry is legal, PERIOD. That jack@$$ Mark Marchiafarva is riding around on a new Harley compliments of the Gonzales pd. So go ahead, arrest someone for open carry. You will quickly find out that you are not above the law. nramarine is right about one thing, either something is legal or it isn't. All rights are created equal, that's the difference between rights and priveledges.

.

Uh...what was that post again about OC'ers not being in it for the money? (yes, aware that was not your quote, but I think I'm on safe ground by adding you to the "shorts in a wad" category).

And...please advise where ANYONE in the OP post was arrested?

Damn, those pesky fact thingy's again. Bummer huh?

 

[Hardballing]

I gotta contend this one point, and it's not just in your post. I quoted because (as usual) you sum it up the best; and it's also the most recent, so I can be lazy.

Maybe it's because I've never carried a firearm as part of my profession or in the exercise of official duty, but I tend to put a little more emphasis on staring down the barrel of a weapon. I am sure your intention isn't to diminish the inherent risk, and in 99% of the OC complaints that are cross-posted on this board, encounters with LEO amount to little more than an inconvenience. In this case, however, I have to contend that it's a bit more serious.

I don't pretend to know SOP or acceptable tactics, but I have been around officers who "broke leather" but did not point the pistol at me. From a purely civilian stand point (who thinks OC is a poor choice, definitely agrees that LEOs have authority regardless of the circumstance, and CERTAINLY understand "cheating" in a potential gun fight), that is a lot less frightening but still very much an illustration of who is in charge.

I don't presume to know the details of this particular encounter, and NOLA and Kraut have both illustrated exactly the types of variables that indicate how interaction between LEO and potential suspect go down. Maybe this kid was "asking for it" (for lack of a better term), but nonetheless, pointing a firearm at someone is serious business, regardless of your background or employment. And I know you all feel the same way, based on the spirit of your comments on this subject.

It's great to hear from you LEOs on these topics; the vast majority of the voices make me glad to know you folks are on the job. As always, thanks for doing the inglorious work of upholding the law, and putting your lives on the line to do what's right. I, for one, certainly appreciate it.

Hell Bo, I have no idea how the encounter really went. And neither do any of the doofs who were volunteering to pay for an attorney for the OP on the OC site.

But...I went back a reread the OP post on that site. The OP is having a conversation, back and forth, with two coppers. They don't arrest him. They let him go about his business. And imo, I have REAL doubts about the validity of his claim of "pointed at his chest". It just doesn't pass the smell test in my experience. Further, his complaint seemed to have been handled by two levels of the LE agency in question, including the Top Bananna, who did not find fault with the officers actions.

So...are the OC folks saying that it's SOP over there for this LE group to pull their gats and go "Barney Fife" at the mere sight of a weapon? The OP notes zero other actions on their part such as verbal commands, physical control, etc. Just his "gangster style" comment (but he did find the time to completely describe his Taurus 1911 and it's Serpa holster). Just a normal conversation, back and forth you know, and oh...is that your service weapon pointed at me?

Something missing here fellas. But hey, it's the internet.

Frankly, I feel threatened by the whole story. Can anyone pony up so that I can sue the cops too?

 

[jetmech1983]

Just saying brother, live in the now and work within that reality instead of insisting on another.

Don't take this one the wrong way nola but I can't agree with this statement. If our country had agreed with this all along we wouldn't even be here.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

So a law officer isn't required to have a working understanding of the law? That's like going to a mechanic who doesn't know how to change a tire. As far as an officer having the right of way, that's just plain false. An officer has no right to disarm me, and I will not consent to being disarmed. Since there is no probable cause under the law, and I donot consent to being searched or having my property seized, that's called a violation of the fourth ammendment. Unless the officer has a warrant or probable cause it is illegal.

Your wrong. Try again. Look up reasonable suspicion and terry Stop. COme back with new rhetoric. You have 1 hour.


MOVE!

 

[Bayoupiper]

Thanks for giving me some good laughs in this thread!


Please continue.


.