[reid36]

Another thread has got me thinking alot on something I dont enjoy thinking about and in order to avoid hijacking that thread I thought I would start another one.

Let me preface this by saying I think there is a real need for law enforcement. I also have alot of respect for the cops that track down evil people like molesters, rapists, killers, and drug dealers. They do a hard job. Let me also acknowledge that I may be wrong in some of my thinking here but it is what I really think.

I believe there are people who are willing to do anything to stay away from the consequences of their illegal acts, even kill a cop. I also believe that the majority of people in this country have no incliniation whatsoever to hurt a cop. I believe that there is a need for cops to be aware of the situations they put themselves into. I DO NOT believe that every "encounter" calls for disarming of a licensed american citizen. When did officer safety become such a paranoia? If an officer pulls someone over and approaches the car to find the driver with his license and CFP in one hand and his other hand on the steering wheel and hears " I have my CFP and I am armed. What would you like me to do?" (like we were all taught to say) than what reason does he have to disarm that citizen? there is no shortage of news stories about cops who have killed a citizen because they "thought" they had a gun. Does a cop's right to safety exceed that of an ordinary american citizen? :dunno:

I would have thought that any cop would be glad to see a licensed carrying american out in the world because we are both on the same side. That person is clearly intending to ensure the protection of himself and his loved ones and not waiting around at Office Max for a cop to come around so he can kill him. We all know that it has been set out that it is not the cop's duty to protect a citizen, so what is the big problem with the citizens protecting themselves? Why is this so frightening to cops?

Perhaps my view of what America should be is naive and outdated, but I believe that government entities should report to the people not the other way around. There should never be a story on the news about an unarmed man with a bad back being killed in his own front yard by cops who were there staking someone else out.

Maybe there is something I am missing here but I cannot see the necessity of disarming american citizens to ensure "officer safety". It makes me sic to my stomach to think about. It is paranoid and unwarranted. I believe it to be entirely unconstitutional and irrational. Citizens should not have to be scared of the cops hasseling them and looking for things to pin on them like disorderly contact for protecting themselves while buying a printer. It is instances like this and others that have caused the breech in respect for the cops. We all like to see the cops catch a killer or take down a drug dealer, but when they start hasseling law-abiding citizens it going to far.

I know that things will not change and it is not my intention to start a cop-bashing thread. I posted this here to "chit-chat" about something that vexes me, thats all.

So gimme your thoughts on the matter, I'm sure I'll get some flames but thats to be expected.

 

[Cinhil]

No flames here, those are my exact sentiments. I agree wholeheartedly with your thoughts and approach to this situation. We as citizens should not be subjected to fear and disarmament tactics by government, that does include police. They receive their authorization to perform their duties from we, the people.

Yes there are bad elements in society, but as as lawful citizen of this country we have the Right to be armed and to defend our constitution, our way of life and our families from egregious usurpations of power. Disarming a lawful citizen does not promote safety. It is a threat to safety. Leave it in the holster and do what your job requires unless there is obvious necessity for that disarmament.

Violating a constitutional right in this manner deletes the ability of a citizen from preventing injury to self or the officer should unlawful elements (criminals) come upon the scene and start committing mayhem. I have as much right to be armed at that time to defend both of us as the officer does. To be left diving for cover and whimpering for my life because the dead officer next to me thought it best for officer safety does not merit respect for constitutional rights.

I guess I could just say I have thought of these same things, and yes, I have been flamed for these thoughts, but it is the way it should be, not the way it is. This is unfortunate for all of us. :agree:

 

[Paul]

Read this old thread and hear in the own words of an officer, HUNTER, why:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1336&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=what+to+do+when+pulled+over

I must say I was pretty annoyed with the idea of disarming a CFP holder, but the more I thought about it, I must also confess that if I was the cop, I would disarm everyone for my own safety. You never really know what people will do and the fact of the matter is that a CFP holder doesn't automatically mean you should trust someone. If you don't want to get disarmed, don't break the law.

This really depends is you are the CFP holder or the LEO.

 

[divegeek]

You never really know what people will do and the fact of the matter is that a CFP holder doesn't automatically mean you should trust someone.

No, but it honestly does mean they're more trustworthy than the average person. This is easy to support with statistics, and it's pretty logical as well. A person who has anger management or other issues that might cause them to attack a cop is unlikely to have gone through their life without losing control in other situations and disqualifying themselves from getting or keeping a CFP.

Also, I doubt someone who is going to shoot a cop would bother saying "Officer, I have a Utah State Concealed Firearm Permit and I am carrying a weapon today", whether they have a CFP or not.

If you don't want to get disarmed, don't break the law.

Ah, if only it were that easy...

 

[reid36]

Read this old thread and hear in the own words of an officer, HUNTER, why:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1336&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=what+to+do+when+pulled+over

I must say I was pretty annoyed with the idea of disarming a CFP holder, but the more I thought about it, I must also confess that if I was the cop, I would disarm everyone for my own safety. You never really know what people will do and the fact of the matter is that a CFP holder doesn't automatically mean you should trust someone. If you don't want to get disarmed, don't break the law.

This really depends is you are the CFP holder or the LEO.

The idea of a blanket personal practise of a cop disarming everyone for his own safety is overly-paranoid. There is aware and ready and then there is overly paranoid. If a citizen hands over his CFP with his DL and declares that he is armed the cop has an on-the-spot demonstration of that citizens willingness to comply with the law. There is no cause to disarm that person. The desire on the cops part to feel warm and fuzzy about his safety does not overturn that citizens right to be armed and it certainly doesnt overturn that citizens 4th amendment rights. People that want to feel safe all the time become accountants.

If you don't want to get disarmed, don't break the law.

I agree. If someone is breaking the law by all means disarm them. Until that point there is no justification for disarming a citizen.

 

[mchlwise]

I think the real problem is that officers can't tell just by looking who is a "law-abiding" citizen and who is not.

I try to put myself in a LEO's position. It's almost like waging a guerilla war. You don't know who the enemy is. Anyone you encounter could be willing and able to kill you at any time. All you want to do is go home to your family when your shift is over, and you can't possibly afford to let your guard down - EVER.

With that in mind, and if I were a cop: if I approached someone on a traffic stop and they had their CC permit out along with valid ID, I would tend to belive that they're probably one of the good guys. If someone tells me they have a CC permit, I'm not going to take their word for it.

Are cops overly paranoid? :dunno: They certainly have every justification to be paranoid. I haven't looked for statistics, but I'm willing to bet quite a bit that there are many more instances (and probably by quite a large margin) of a policeman getting shot and killed by a citizen than there are of law-abiding citizens getting shot and killed by policemen.

 

[jaredbelch]

I agree that officer safety is important, but I feel that that officer is employed to provide for our safety... On the website for SL County Sheriff, they use the phrase "protect and serve" and I believe that not only means protect life, but liberties as well. When a department decides that every time one of it's officers sees a weapon, they are to confiscate it until they are certain all is well, they have crossed the line. (I'm not saying this has happened).
I really don't know the answer of how to fix the problem, because the ability of an officer to do his job shouldn't be restricted by legislators on the hill. There are times that an officer must hold on to a weapon for his "safety" but these times should be few and far between in my opinion. I'm not sure a list of arbitrary circumstances describing when and where it is okay, or not okay to take someone's gun is the answer. It's a tough question, but it also makes me furious to read about instances where a person doing nothing out of the ordinary is detained and questioned for simply having a firearm on his belt. It's also infuriating to read and hear about the police specifically targeting and rounding up anyone with a firearm like in PA with the "Dickson Dozen."

I hope we can do our part to educate and normalize gun laws and rights so the public and Law Enforcement don't freak out at the mear mention of a gun... (I reminded myself of the KFC commercial when the girl is eating lunch and someone screams "she has a knife" :lol3: )

 

[Paul]

... but it honestly does mean they're more trustworthy than the average person....

I disagree with this statement. Your statement could also be restated to say "The average person (those without CFP's) are LESS trustworthy than CFP holders." Thats what you just said. Does your wife, father, mother, brother, sister, etc have a permit? If no then you just said you are more trustworthy than them. I doubt you really mean that. The vast majority of "average persons" are not FELONS and would absolutely qualify for CFP's if they wanted them. So does having a CFP really mean you are better, more trustworthy, and more law abiding than the next guy?

I have a CFP and I just got a speeding ticket. My mother does not have a CFP and has never gotten any sort of citation. Am I more trustworthy and lawabiding than her? I don't think so.....

 

[jaredbelch]

... but it honestly does mean they're more trustworthy than the average person....

I disagree with this statement. Your statement could also be restated to say "The average person (those without CFP's) are LESS trustworthy than CFP holders." Thats what you just said. Does your wife, father, mother, brother, sister, etc have a permit? If no then you just said you are more trustworthy than them. I doubt you really mean that. The vast majority of "average persons" are not FELONS and would absolutely qualify for CFP's if they wanted them. So does having a CFP really mean you are better, more trustworthy, and more law abiding than the next guy?

I have a CFP and I just got a speeding ticket. My mother does not have a CFP and has never gotten any sort of citation. Am I more trustworthy and lawabiding than her? I don't think so.....

I understand what your saying, but I understood swillden's post to mean that only the above average are granted permits, and therefore it's safe to assume that if a person has a valid permit they can be safely considered to be a "more trustworthy" citizen. Right up there with those who don't have permits and are also trustworthy. The permit merely indicates that there are no serious character flaws or violations that are known to BCI.

Swillden can speak for himself, but I didn't interpret him to be bashing anyone without a permit, or calling them out as being not trustworthy.

 

[Paul]

... but it honestly does mean they're more trustworthy than the average person....

I disagree with this statement. Your statement could also be restated to say "The average person (those without CFP's) are LESS trustworthy than CFP holders." Thats what you just said. Does your wife, father, mother, brother, sister, etc have a permit? If no then you just said you are more trustworthy than them. I doubt you really mean that. The vast majority of "average persons" are not FELONS and would absolutely qualify for CFP's if they wanted them. So does having a CFP really mean you are better, more trustworthy, and more law abiding than the next guy?

I have a CFP and I just got a speeding ticket. My mother does not have a CFP and has never gotten any sort of citation. Am I more trustworthy and lawabiding than her? I don't think so.....

I understand what your saying, but I understood swillden's post to mean that only the above average are granted permits, and therefore it's safe to assume that if a person has a valid permit they can be safely considered to be a "more trustworthy" citizen. Right up there with those who don't have permits and are also trustworthy. The permit merely indicates that there are no serious character flaws or violations that are known to BCI.

Swillden can speak for himself, but I didn't interpret him to be bashing anyone without a permit, or calling them out as being not trustworthy.

I don't think he is either. However thats how it sounded and I am being a bit extreme in my response. :raisedbrow: We need to remember a permit is an indicator of PAST behavior. Noone can see into the future! You never know what people are going to do. Isn't this really why we carry EVERYWHERE! Past behavior is not always the safest or best indicator of FUTURE behavior. And isn't FUTURE behavior really what the cops are protecting themselves against?

 

[Cinhil]

I don't think he is either. However thats how it sounded and I am being a bit extreme in my response. :raisedbrow: We need to remember a permit is an indicator of PAST behavior. Noone can see into the future! You never know what people are going to do. Isn't this really why we carry EVERYWHERE! Past behavior is not always the safest or best indicator of FUTURE behavior. And isn't FUTURE behavior really what the cops are protecting themselves against?

If Future behavior is what the cops are protecting themselves from why would they deliberately jeopardize a citizens safety by disarming them, period. It is more or less unconscionable to do this when the officers action could be the reason for discharging your weapon into your leg. There is neither officer safety, or citizen safety when this happens. Lets face it, we have all seen the video, or heard of the Police Chief who said they were the only Qualified person they knew to be able to handle a weapon, just to shoot themselves with it. I trust me. I don't know him/her, and their action jeopardizes me and perhaps my family or others. It is not a healthy habit.

 

[divegeek]

... but it honestly does mean they're more trustworthy than the average person....

I disagree with this statement. Your statement could also be restated to say "The average person (those without CFP's) are LESS trustworthy than CFP holders."

Yep, and either way you state it, it's true.

This doesn't mean that a given non CFP-holder isn't trustworthy, but ON AVERAGE (i.e. statistically) CFP holders are about seven times less likely to be convicted of any crime and about twelve times less likely to be convicted of a violent crime than the national average. Twelve times. That's rather significant.

Of course, statistics only give you probabilities that will hold over the course of a large number of encounters. Any specific encounter can be with any kind of person, and the officer has to keep that in mind. However, that doesn't make the statistics useless to the officer, either.

It's similar to the fact that it's usually more reasonable to expect a well-dressed man to be polite and non-violent than it is to expect the same behavior from a heavily-tattooed, pierced man with a shaved head. I've known people who dress well and have hair-trigger, violent tempers, and very scary-looking people who are the nicest guys in the world -- but that doesn't make the stereotypes useless. And, in fact, police officers do rely heavily on such stereotypes in determining how to approach individuals.

In this particular case, the numbers show that a reasonable stereotype of a CFP holder is "serious, law-abiding and even-tempered". Officers can and should make use of that one as well -- while watching out for the exceptions, obviously. In fact, though it seems that officers consider CFP holders to be more dangerous than the average person, which makes no sense at all.

 

[divegeek]

We need to remember a permit is an indicator of PAST behavior. Noone can see into the future! You never know what people are going to do. Isn't this really why we carry EVERYWHERE! Past behavior is not always the safest or best indicator of FUTURE behavior. And isn't FUTURE behavior really what the cops are protecting themselves against?

A lifetime of past behavior -- especially among people who've been adults for a good while -- is, in fact, an EXCELLENT predictor of future behavior. It's not perfect, of course. Life-shattering events can cause people to behave unpredictably, as can serious mental health issues, but those issues are very much the exception.

It's a good thing this is true, too. If it weren't, society would be completely unable to function. There are lots of sensitive jobs that require highly trustworthy people, and we fill them with people who have a solid history of dependability. Lenders rely on past behavior to predict whether loans are a good risk. Heck, our every daily interaction with the people around us relies heavily on past behavior to allow us to predict their actions. That's why strangers make us more nervous than people we know, even when the people we know may not be the most rational, because we lack the history to provide good predictions. It's also why mentally unbalanced people are so disconcerting and even frightening, because we know that we have no idea what they'll do.

Getting back to the CFP, an individual who has never committed illegal violence in thirty or forty years on this planet is extremely unlikely to start now. Not that it doesn't happen, but it's rare, and it's appropriate to use that fact to predict future behavior in specific cases (while keeping in mind that the exceptions do exist). In a given traffic stop, the officer often has little idea what the past behavior of the person he has pulled over is, and has correspondingly little ability to predict future behavior. If the person has a CFP, however, then the officer KNOWS that the individual has no history of violent crime convictions, which is a strong indicator that the person is not violent. This is POSITIVE information that the officer can and should use to shape his approach to the encounter.

 

[reid36]

We need to remember a permit is an indicator of PAST behavior. Noone can see into the future! You never know what people are going to do. Isn't this really why we carry EVERYWHERE! Past behavior is not always the safest or best indicator of FUTURE behavior. And isn't FUTURE behavior really what the cops are protecting themselves against?

A lifetime of past behavior -- especially among people who've been adults for a good while -- is, in fact, an EXCELLENT predictor of future behavior. It's not perfect, of course. Life-shattering events can cause people to behave unpredictably, as can serious mental health issues, but those issues are very much the exception.

It's a good thing this is true, too. If it weren't, society would be completely unable to function. There are lots of sensitive jobs that require highly trustworthy people, and we fill them with people who have a solid history of dependability. Lenders rely on past behavior to predict whether loans are a good risk. Heck, our every daily interaction with the people around us relies heavily on past behavior to allow us to predict their actions. That's why strangers make us more nervous than people we know, even when the people we know may not be the most rational, because we lack the history to provide good predictions. It's also why mentally unbalanced people are so disconcerting and even frightening, because we know that we have no idea what they'll do.

Getting back to the CFP, an individual who has never committed illegal violence in thirty or forty years on this planet is extremely unlikely to start now. Not that it doesn't happen, but it's rare, and it's appropriate to use that fact to predict future behavior in specific cases (while keeping in mind that the exceptions do exist). In a given traffic stop, the officer often has little idea what the past behavior of the person he has pulled over is, and has correspondingly little ability to predict future behavior. If the person has a CFP, however, then the officer KNOWS that the individual has no history of violent crime convictions, which is a strong indicator that the person is not violent. This is POSITIVE information that the officer can and should use to shape his approach to the encounter.

:agree:

 

[Jeff Johnson]

Well-said, swilden!

Here's another example. There are people who go through a thorough background investigation to obtain a security clearance for access to classified material. This relies heavily on past behavior to predict future behavior. The vast majority of people who obtain security clearances can be relied upon to not divulge classified material to unauthorized persons. The rare exceptions usually hit the newspapers when violators are discovered and prosecuted (for example the John Walker spy case). Should the fact that there are rare exceptions to the rule cause authorities to assume that a person with a security clearance is automatically a spy? Heck no.

 

[Cowboy]

The last time I received a speeding ticket was on Bangerter highway about 6 years ago,when I informed the officer I had my permit he asked me if I had my weapon with me,I replied yes and this is what he said. " If you don't pull yours out and start waving it around I won't either". he was pretty cool about it but I still got a ticket for 10 over.

I posted this comment on the thread I believe you were referencing.I was speeding, I broke the law and I deserved the ticket plain and simple, I never felt threatened in any way and I never gave the officer any reason to feel in danger at any time.I believe he was very secure and comfortable in his position, he never felt the need to make a statement by dragging me out and disarming me.I will not forget his actions and I hope he remembers the respect I showed him for his position.I do not think any officer has the right to feel above the law and I feel they need to show citizens the same respect that MOST of us give them. I don't feel the officer we are talking about or any other officer has the right or need to disarm us unless we have given them a very good reason.

 

[Outsider]

Perhaps my view of what America should be is naive and outdated, but I believe that government entities should report to the people not the other way around. Maybe there is something I am missing here but I cannot see the necessity of disarming american citizens to ensure "officer safety". It makes me sic to my stomach to think about. It is paranoid and unwarranted. I believe it to be entirely unconstitutional and irrational. Citizens should not have to be scared of the cops hasseling them and looking for things to pin on them like disorderly contact for protecting themselves while buying a printer.

My take on that:
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." -V, V for Vendetta

Cops work for the government (local, county, state, or federal). I shouldn't be afraid of the cop coming up to me and talking to me if I have done nothing wrong. I shouldn't have to explain my rights to someone that should be protecting them as someone stated earlier. If I want to open-carry in Wal-Mart or the zoo or wherever not prohibited by law, that is my right. :agree: fully. And no I don't think "{your} view of what America should be is naive or outdated" IT IS what America should be and the bad guys have changed it to make us law-biding citizens look back in the public eye (fellow citizens, cops, and the law makers).

In listening to that audio recording about open-carry with Utah's AG and CCPs he said in there have CCP holders submit themselves to a daily background check to make sure they can keep their CCP. A cop should know what a CCP looks like along with its security features. If it is a clean cut CCP along with the person's drivers license there SHOULD NOT be a problem in my opinion or a need to disarm that law-biding citizen.

My $.02.

 

[Guest]

Perhaps my view of what America should be is naive and outdated, but I believe that government entities should report to the people not the other way around. Maybe there is something I am missing here but I cannot see the necessity of disarming american citizens to ensure "officer safety". It makes me sic to my stomach to think about. It is paranoid and unwarranted. I believe it to be entirely unconstitutional and irrational. Citizens should not have to be scared of the cops hasseling them and looking for things to pin on them like disorderly contact for protecting themselves while buying a printer.

My take on that:
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." -V, V for Vendetta

Cops work for the government (local, county, state, or federal). I shouldn't be afraid of the cop coming up to me and talking to me if I have done nothing wrong. I shouldn't have to explain my rights to someone that should be protecting them as someone stated earlier. If I want to open-carry in Wal-Mart or the zoo or wherever not prohibited by law, that is my right. :agree: fully. And no I don't think "{your} view of what America should be is naive or outdated" IT IS what America should be and the bad guys have changed it to make us law-biding citizens look back in the public eye (fellow citizens, cops, and the law makers).

In listening to that audio recording about open-carry with Utah's AG and CCPs he said in there have CCP holders submit themselves to a daily background check to make sure they can keep their CCP. A cop should know what a CCP looks like along with its security features. If it is a clean cut CCP along with the person's drivers license there SHOULD NOT be a problem in my opinion or a need to disarm that law-biding citizen.

My $.02.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

It is dangerous whenever I post in threads that discuss law enforcement as I have very strong opinions on the subject and have a tendency to be censured and censored. All I will say is I agree with one exception.

And no I don't think "{your} view of what America should be is naive or outdated" IT IS what America should be and the bad guys have changed it to make us law-biding citizens look back in the public eye (fellow citizens, cops, and the law makers).

Unless you are referring to Mr and Mrs Everyman when you say "bad guys". We are to blame for the state of the nation; crime is a catalyst. It is an excuse the weak use to abdicate responsibility for their lives. It is our weakness that has allowed cops to become the fist of tyrants. A society can either stand on the freedom of responsibility or tyranny of law.

 

[glock fan]

LEO have a difficult and sometimes dangerous job. That being said, there are certain precautions that should be taken while conducting any kind of contact with the general public. If the LEO disarms EVERYONE for their "safety", then I would have no problem with them disarming me. This would include their friends, relatives and OTHER LEO. Now if there is even one person that they would not disarm, then I'd say that they're "overly paranoid". A case where a CFP holder would use their firearm to harm a LEO is extremely rare. I'm sure it has happened in the past, but can be comfortable in saying that it's more likely that the great majority of folks who will harm a LEO with a firearm are not CFP holders.

If the stop is for a minor infraction (for example a traffic violation), then the officer should instruct the CFP holder to keep their hands away from the firearms, but not disarm the citizen unless given reason to do so (citizen is drunk, exhibits agressive behavior, etc.) If the stop is for something more serious (possible felony, domestic violence, etc), then disarming a citizen may be warranted.

I disagree with the business of disarming "everyone" under the guise of "officer safety".

gf

 

[Cinhil]

LEO have a difficult and sometimes dangerous job. That being said, there are certain precautions that should be taken while conducting any kind of contact with the general public. If the LEO disarms EVERYONE for their "safety", then I would have no problem with them disarming me. This would include their friends, relatives and OTHER LEO. Now if there is even one person that they would not disarm, then I'd say that they're "overly paranoid". A case where a CFP holder would use their firearm to harm a LEO is extremely rare. I'm sure it has happened in the past, but can be comfortable in saying that it's more likely that the great majority of folks who will harm a LEO with a firearm are not CFP holders.

If the stop is for a minor infraction (for example a traffic violation), then the officer should instruct the CFP holder to keep their hands away from the firearms, but not disarm the citizen unless given reason to do so (citizen is drunk, exhibits agressive behavior, etc.) If the stop is for something more serious (possible felony, domestic violence, etc), then disarming a citizen may be warranted.

I disagree with the business of disarming "everyone" under the guise of "officer safety".

gf

AMEN! :agree: :agree: Exactly how I feel! Thanks for expressing that sentiment.