[SATX]

Regarding the Philando Castile shooting and acquittal of the officer I have just one opinion and that's the importance of the responsibility of carrying a firearm in the sense of thinking ahead, preparation for any encounter and good judgement.

If ever an encounter should occur while armed I would notify the officer and do absolutely nothing until commanded to do so by the officer and then follow the commands to the letter. In a traffic stop situation, I would have my license and my LTC in my hand with both hands on the wheel and overhead light on. I would call this common sense but that is not the world we live in.

Tragic for everyone involved.

 

[GFFIREMEDIC53]

I'm not sure we will ever know what actually happened and I am always careful to do any Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Tragic for all that are and were involved in the whole process.

 

[7.62Kolectr]

In Florida we are not required to declare anything. And I'm not volunteering anything unless I'm asked. Give me my ticket for the broken tail light and we can both go about our ways. The officer doesn't need to know if I'm carrying as it has no bearing on the traffic stop. And if they are scared to deal with armed honest citizens I suggest they find a different job.

 

[PatFranklin]

Some cases its true we'll never know the undisputed truth. Especially when death results at the hands of an officer during the course of a non-felony traffic stop.

But, as demonstrated in the rapid indictments and almost as rapid acquittals of the cops in Baltimore, many of today's prosecutions of cops are purely politically motivated; served up as pablum for the rabble.

 

[SATX]

I agree. We will never know what happened. I'm just saying that a little mental preparedness and prudence goes a long way.

A few years ago I worked as an armed security officer. A coworker who was a bit younger than I told me that on the way home from work in full uniform he was stopped for a traffic violation. He said the police officer asked him to place his firearm on the dash during the stop, to which he complied. I told him he was crazy. I would have told the officer that respectfully, I'm not touching my gun in your presence. I would have asked him to call a supervisor and then I would get out of the vehicle so that he may disarm me. Armed security in San Antonio is quite prevalent and he was already concerned about me being armed in uniform, no way would I have my gun in my hand.

 

[dplay]

some cases its true we'll never know the undisputed truth. Especially when death results at the hands of an officer during the course of a non-felony traffic stop.

But, as demonstrated in the rapid indictments and almost as rapid acquittals of the cops in baltimore, many of today's prosecutions of cops are purely politically motivated; served up as pablum for the rabble.

^^^^^^^^this!

 

[InOverMyHead]

Pat, I'm going to wonder another angle.

I find that most people that serve via law enforcement or our legal system believe in those institutions. They recognize the human failings yet believe in the system. As such they tend to rely on the systems, as I believe is intended, to rebuild trust in the overarching system.

Faced with a community that expresses disenfranchisement or perhaps distrust of a facet, the police as an example, those leaders would default to the system they trust and likely most of the community trusts in order to rebuild trust.

A cop shoots someone and the community or a vocal aspect is up in arms. Allowing or facilitating a trial of their peers is one of our mechanisms to ensure justice is served. Doing that, a trial, then allows the leaders to address the community minus direct involvment in the outcome and encourage the community to move forward.

The cop was found to be justified by a jury drawn from the community. Not by an organization perhaps attempting to cover for itself. It also allows the police officer to have their name cleared via a court of law. That's got to be worth something to the cop. Idk. I would think that acquittal does help stop some of the civil liability efforts that everyone worries about.

I think -think- in the end, most people will recognize that the same judicial system that keeps stepping on Pres Trump's "travel ban" is the same system that needed more evidence to make a decision about Cosby is the same system that convicted a white grandpa that was serving as a deputy that shot a man when he intended to tazer him is the same system that found this cop not guilty. We might want to believe institutional bias but we recognize the reality. Thus the majority will want to heal and move. Which is what our elected and appointed leaders want. Or so I wonder.....

Meanwhile there are those of us that are more likely to inherently trust law enforcement and the legal system (until we feel we've been somehow wronged). And we worry things will go sideways for someone we tend to hold up -the cop- over someone we would admonish -the guy that got himself shot.
Yet how many of us just wanted our day in court concerning Holder or Clinton now Comey and without that day in court we just won't let it rest.?.

Anyhow, 1st thoughts......

 

[Redfish]

In Florida we are not required to declare anything. And I'm not volunteering anything unless I'm asked. Give me my ticket for the broken tail light and we can both go about our ways. The officer doesn't need to know if I'm carrying as it has no bearing on the traffic stop. And if they are scared to deal with armed honest citizens I suggest they find a different job.

There is nothing wrong with what you say or what you decide to do. One should note however that the law does not say you don't have to declare a weapon. One does not have to declare a weapon because there is no law stating that you have to declare.

Personally, I would always tell an officer if I am armed or at least give them a copy of my license. I don't see the situation being a concerned over my rights, but more of a safest way to handle a situation.

If I was to cross paths with an officer that I thought was scared of a honest citizen with a firearm I am sure I would try calm that fear as quickly as possible for my own safety. And yes I do think they should seek another employment opportunities. I would go as far to seek out a supervisor of some sort to relay that information to them.

As an officer it did not make a difference to me if someone declared a weapon to me or not. I did take exception to someone lying to me that they did not have a weapon in a arrest situation.

 

[PatFranklin]

InOverMyHead,

Your observations have much validity to them. But, our legal system is not meant to be employed to fend off criticism of our institutions or its politicos who head them. Nor, is it designed to enhance the peoples' belief in our institutions. Albeit, this is often times exactly what it happening viz. Baltimore.

There is one useful segment of our judiciary that does play a more appropriate role in both fact-finding and settling matters of grave impact on society: the Grand Jury. I don't understand why the prosecutor (I guess I really do) in Baltimore direct filed on those cops. It would've been so much wiser to allow the Grand Jury a full review and then publish its findings resulting in a True Bill (indictment) or No True Bill. Smart prosecutors will fall back on the Grand Jury to 1) stay a step out of the process and not bias the system - remember prosecutors and cops usually play on the same team; 2) if indictments result the prosecutor can remain friendly with the cops she must work with when the dust settles; and 3) most importantly, if the prosecution of the cops indicted fails to get convictions, the Grand Jury can be the fall guy.

However, as to your concerns over fair-play as determined by the media and political hacks looking to stir the pot, a prosecutor takes an oath of office and is supposed to file on cases that have a likelihood of conviction. Not just throw someone into the system to let them stand trial to satisfy some community desire or crowd seeking blood (you know pitchforks and torches).

I actually cleared four officers wrongly charged from the get go and was being pressured to conduct an I A case and get them fired and off the street while they were under indictment. I absolutely refused and was roundly criticized but held firm and warned my chief to stay out of it. Let the prosecutor handle the case that he was so eager to indict. If it was such a good case why would he want the I A case and have them fired? Long story short, after I was deposed and testified as to my own analysis of the evidence - evidence of wrongdoing I never could find - all charges were dropped against all four officers. Then my I A case was activated and I cleared all officers.

But, the exercise was at the expense of getting the police chief fired (I warned him) and thus ending his career forevermore, one officer suffering a nervous breakdown and is now permanently disabled, another officer's wife left him and they filed bankruptcy, and, fortunately, the remaining two officers had families that could support them while out on suspension for over a year awaiting a trial that never came but was always threatened. Meantime, I produced a 125 page report that found massive perjury and falsified evidence by the prosecution and its investigators. And, based upon my report, I am very happy to say that they are now the subject of multiple lawsuits for false arrest, civil rights violations, etc. But lives were ruined just to conduct what was really nothing more than an academic exercise.

 

[wetwrks]

There is nothing wrong with what you say or what you decide to do. One should note however that the law does not say you don't have to declare a weapon. One does not have to declare a weapon because there is no law stating that you have to declare.

Personally, I would always tell an officer if I am armed or at least give them a copy of my license. I don't see the situation being a concerned over my rights, but more of a safest way to handle a situation.

If I was to cross paths with an officer that I thought was scared of a honest citizen with a firearm I am sure I would try calm that fear as quickly as possible for my own safety. And yes I do think they should seek another employment opportunities. I would go as far to seek out a supervisor of some sort to relay that information to them.

As an officer it did not make a difference to me if someone declared a weapon to me or not. I did take exception to someone lying to me that they did not have a weapon in a arrest situation.

At one point Colorado had a list of the CCW carriers and it would flag you when the police entered your info...that has gone away. While it was still in effect I was pulled over and given a warning for speed and the officer ended the conversation asking if I was armed as he had seen I have a CCW. I responded that it wasn't on me but was in the bag on the passenger floorboard. He said ok and that was the end of it. Good interaction.

But another could have gone horribly bad...back prior to having my CCW an officer pulled me over...he was visibly shaking when he approached the vehicle. I hadnt even had a chance to reach for my wallet before he was at my window. When he asked for my license I started to reach for my wallet...and he grabbed his gun. I stopped...and slowly placed my hand back on the steering wheel. He again asked for my license and I responded that I would not reach for it if it meant he was going to go for his gun. Bad interaction...that probably would have been 100 times worse if he had any indication I was armed. In that instance I was not.

If you are dealing with an average cop...or a pro-gun cop...things will most likely go well reguardless of you carrying a gun. If you are dealing with an anti-gun cop and they find out you are armed it will increase the chances of you being ticketed and could escalate well beyond a simple ticket. Don't lie...but don't volunteer info that doesn't apply to the reason you are speaking to an officer to begin with.

 

[7.62Kolectr]

There is nothing wrong with what you say or what you decide to do. One should note however that the law does not say you don't have to declare a weapon. One does not have to declare a weapon because there is no law stating that you have to declare.

Personally, I would always tell an officer if I am armed or at least give them a copy of my license. I don't see the situation being a concerned over my rights, but more of a safest way to handle a situation.

If I was to cross paths with an officer that I thought was scared of a honest citizen with a firearm I am sure I would try calm that fear as quickly as possible for my own safety. And yes I do think they should seek another employment opportunities. I would go as far to seek out a supervisor of some sort to relay that information to them.

As an officer it did not make a difference to me if someone declared a weapon to me or not. I did take exception to someone lying to me that they did not have a weapon in a arrest situation.

Never said I'd lie. If they ask I'll disclose. I'm just not volunteering it without question. Reason being is that it opens you up to being disarmed. The safest place for my gun is in the holster it's in. I don't like fooling with loaded weapons on the side of the road. Since I carry a 1911 and many cops can't figure out a Glock I'd rather not have them try to figure out how to unload it safely. I had one cop remove my Sig 229 from my glove box years ago. He removed the mag, racked the slide and ejected the round. After that for the life of him he did not know how to drop the hammer with the decocker. I'd rather just not fool with it.
And the reason they give you 'I need to remove the gun for my safety' is BS and not legal anyway. They have no legal right or authority to disarm a licensed carrier here. You should know that since you were an officer. If he asks I'll certainly tell him 'yes I'm carrying and it's in a holster on my hip'. And that's where it'll stop. If they want to disarm me for their safety I will decline their offer. He doesn't like it that's too bad. I'll make no sudden movements and I rarely get stopped anyway. But loaded guns and the knowledge of them are best left out of the conversation.

 

[Redfish]

Never said I'd lie. If they ask I'll disclose. I'm just not volunteering it without question. Reason being is that it opens you up to being disarmed. The safest place for my gun is in the holster it's in. I don't like fooling with loaded weapons on the side of the road. Since I carry a 1911 and many cops can't figure out a Glock I'd rather not have them try to figure out how to unload it safely. I had one cop remove my Sig 229 from my glove box years ago. He removed the mag, racked the slide and ejected the round. After that for the life of him he did not know how to drop the hammer with the decocker. I'd rather just not fool with it.
And the reason they give you 'I need to remove the gun for my safety' is BS and not legal anyway. They have no legal right or authority to disarm a licensed carrier here. You should know that since you were an officer. If he asks I'll certainly tell him 'yes I'm carrying and it's in a holster on my hip'. And that's where it'll stop. If they want to disarm me for their safety I will decline their offer. He doesn't like it that's too bad. I'll make no sudden movements and I rarely get stopped anyway. But loaded guns and the knowledge of them are best left out of the conversation.

As I said there is nothing wrong with what you choose to do. I would recommend to others that they are asked to surrender a weapon they do so. While in most traffic or public interactions officers do not have a legal authority to make that request (as you stated) it is also not unreasonable in some instances. An officer does have the authority to disarm for their own safety in certain situations "Terry vs Ohio".

The reason I would make the recommendation to comply is because it is extremely difficult for me as a civilian to know exactly what a officer is thinking. Nothing good can come from my declining to comply with the request and nothing bad can come from my complying. If I think the officer acted unreasonable I have the ability to rectify their actions.

If at the very least if one takes the recommendation to decline I would think it would be reasonable to request why. While the officer may decline to answer they may explain why. It would possibly serve to dampen the encounter that could turn dangerous quickly.

 

[PatFranklin]

This is where we come to the crossroads between what is legal and what is practical.

There is nothing unlawful in an officer's questioning you as to whether or not you're armed. Furthermore, there is nothing unlawful in his request to have you surrender your weapon or otherwise disarm yourself. Moreover, there is nothing unlawful in one's refusal relative to the officer's request(s).

How you handle these situations will be determined by what is within your own comfort zone. Don't try to be someone or something you're not. If you feel the officer's request is respectful and compliance on your part is the easier way to facilitate moving on with the traffic stop and continue with your (and his) business just comply. But there is surely no right or wrong answer here.

From my own experience, generally speaking and not solely as it relates to guns, being polite and respectful and compliant will make for a very smooth and quick stop. Non-compliance typically opens up a nasty can of worms.

 

[InOverMyHead]

The reason I would make the recommendation to comply is because it is extremely difficult for me as a civilian to know exactly what a officer is thinking. Nothing good can come from my declining to comply with the request and nothing bad can come from my complying. If I think the officer acted unreasonable I have the ability to rectify their actions.

......... It would possibly serve to dampen the encounter that could turn dangerous quickly.

The Castile case is a good place to apply that reasoning. If I understood the officer's testimony, he was on alert because he thought he it likely he'd pulled over the auto theft suspect, then a gun makes an appearance, the girl starts live streaming it (I'm sure that descalated the tension), then a misunderstanding of what Castile was doing and what the officer wanted him to do.
I wonder if Castile was perhaps reaching for his I'd in his pocket on the side the gun was on(isn't that a "common" scenario?), the officer panics, Castile doesn't realize you don't go near the gun and bamb! Everything goes wrong.

Not suggesting the officer was correct, not suggesting Castile wasn't within his rights. Suggesting a lot more communication and descalation would perhaps have gone a long way.

 

[7.62Kolectr]

Stay calm. Give him your ID, reg and ins and sit still. Admit you have a gun if asked. And stay still while declining his request to disarm you. Make no furtive movements. What got the victim shot was he continued to move after being told not to.
I've had officers disarm me and it wasn't fun watching them fiddle with my loaded gun.
It is an accident waiting to happen having another person remove a loaded pistol from a holster on my person.
I've had officers tell me keep your hands on the wheel or dashboard.
When it wasn't on me and in the console or glove box I've had them ask me to exit the vehicle. The last two I have no problem with. The first one I do.
If he was in any danger it would immediately come, not after I turned over three forms of ID.
If he doesn't like my response he can call his Sgt and they can figure out how much of their time they wanna waste trying to commit an unlawful act of disarming me. It still won't happen. Will I be rude or argumentative? No. Nice and polite.
As Redfish mentioned Terry vs Ohio he must keep in mind that involved RAS, reasonable articulable suspicion. What crime do they suspect me of committing? Unless they can reasonably express that they aren't gonna get far. Sorry, I know a lot of cops and folks from alphabet agencies. Some would disarm you just to exert their 'power' or authority over you. The more people that tell them 'no id rather not let you do that' the better. Give me my ticket for the infraction you stopped me for and let me go or we can sit here all day.
Either way I'll make no aggressive moves, say nothing threatening and give him no reason to think he's in jeopardy. Again this victim 'reached' or kept teaching for something AFTER being told to stay still. That's what got him shot. He may not have even had a gun and still wound up dead. The fact he had a loaded gun in his pocket to me really isn't as important as the fact he kept moving. I'll do what he has the right to tell me to do, sit still.

And again nowadays I base my reasoning mostly on the fact that a cocked and locked 1911 is foreign to many officers and I'd rather protect their safety and not let them fool with it.

 

[SATX]

I fully support the blue line and have police officer friends but I'd still feel a whole lot better if the cop disarms me. I just don't want to put my hand on a weapon during a traffic stop. I don't want to say I don't trust cops, I just don't know you.

 

[7.62Kolectr]

I fully support the blue line and have police officer friends but I'd still feel a whole lot better if the cop disarms me. I just don't want to put my hand on a weapon during a traffic stop. I don't want to say I don't trust cops, I just don't know you.

We are really playing with semantics here as it's a rare occasion for most of us.
But in continuing to do so let's just say that allowing an officer to disarm you is breaking one of the rules of safe gun handling and that is 'never pass a loaded weapon'. You can't unload it before you give it to him as yes it would make most cops nervous to allow you to touch your gun. If he removes it he's removing a loaded gun off your hip. Not saying it will happen but it is an accident waiting to happen. Loaded guns are best left in their holsters. Then everybody stays safe.

 

[SATX]

Loaded guns are best left in their holsters. Then everybody stays safe.

This, I agree with.

 

[7.62Kolectr]

This, I agree with.

So when said to a police officer in a calm cool manner and he still wants to take it then just becomes them trying to exhibit their power and authority over you. That I don't agree with.

My response to him saying 'for my safety I need to take your gun' would be 'to protect you and assure your safety I'd rather leave it in the holster where it belongs.'

 

[7.62Kolectr]

This link will show a lot, solve a lot and even create more questions.
The video of the shooting is telling in the fact of how calm she is.
In fact her demeanor is exactly the same as in the second video of them smoking a blunt in the car in the park. Same same.
She's in the car next to her just shot boyfriend and not crying, not hysterical, not screaming for help, not begging for an ambulance or emergency services, just simply 'hey I'm here and they just shot him.'
Cop screams 'I TOLD HIM NOT TO REACH FOR IT!'
And again as calm as can be she says 'no sir. You asked him for his ID.'
It's like she's not even right next to a shot dying loved one?
I think her brain is fried from too many blunts and she's devoid of emotion as a result.


https://theconservativetreehouse.co...lse-media-narrative-now-driving-cop-killings/