Disarmed for obeying the law

difficult situation, officer safety is the utmost importance, even if the victim had his CCW, the officer does not know if the CCW is the agressor.

Just because someone has a CCW they are not automatically a good guy. We all have seen THAT GUY at the range, you know the guy, the "some people should not be able to procreate, let alone handle a firearm..." guy.

I am siding with the officer here. I can understand her disarming him since she may or may not know the full situation. Plus, with cops and soldiers, I tend to give them far more benefit of the doubt as they have half a second to decide who lives or dies or even if they live or die in the right situation.

The problem, for me, would have been had she not returned his weapon and released him that night after his identity and the facility cleared being established. Or if the powers that be there had decided to screw him as a result.

I also agree that the 2A doesn't require and permitting process to CCW. So, if the state had no CCW stuff, she would have been within the right to frisk, cuff and disarm him immediately until she confirmed everything.

Disarming would be fine, but to actually handcuff him is unacceptable to me. If she still felt unsafe after disarming him, she isn't qualified enough to be a law enforcement agent, maybe desk duty would suite her better.

Dazzo said:

Disarming would be fine, but to actually handcuff him is unacceptable to me. If she still felt unsafe after disarming him, she isn't qualified enough to be a law enforcement agent, maybe desk duty would suite her better.

Click to expand...

Come on! When police get to a crime scene, they will sometimes even cuff a known dead body, just in case.

Just my two cents, not an LIF statement....

I am on the fence about this. I see a few give-n-takes going on, but I think this was a violation of Rights.

I understand WHY a new female Officer might have felt unsafe at that time, however, as many an LEO or lawyer will tell you, if the job is too much, by all means , go work at Hooters or a Computer 3-D design firm.

Had it been me, I would have asked the man to wait with me, stood several feet from him with my hand close to my sidearm (you all know the routine), and politely ask the man not to put his hands in his pockets without telling me first, engaged in small talk about the break in, and the ones in the past, until backup could arrive.

Hopefully this will serve as a reminder to the People that their Rights are already infringed, and serve as an opportunity for the Police develop a more rational way to "make everyone safe". I do not think I would feel safe while unarmed and handcuffed at dawn at the scene of a break in.

Once she had secured his firearm there was no need to cuff him. If she was really concerned she could have placed him in the back of her crusier until backup arrived. I wasn't there, the officer used her best judgment. Nobody was hurt and everyone is safe. I have a friend who is a homicide detective out in LV and I have been there many many times. It truley is the wild wild west out there.

-Jim

Securing his pistol was okay.
Suspects are to be handcuffed and detained. I don't see how she felt he was somehow a suspect in this break-in.
Handcuffing was out of the question
If she felt unsafe back-up was the proper response before proceding.

He has a great suit against this department

.

In my opinion, the officer, who should have known the name of the person who called them in and who owned the property, overreacted, then placed the property owner and herself in a very dangerous position, by not only disarming him but, cuffing him, then placing him in the car, where he was doubly unable to defend himself or her, should the need have arisen. How could she have possibly considered him a perp or such a high danger, to be required to be cuffed, then placed in a car, if he was the owner, on the scene?
My two cents.
Gary

Gary_Hungerford said:

In my opinion, the officer, who should have known the name of the person who called them in and who owned the property, overreacted, then placed the property owner and herself in a very dangerous position, by not only disarming him but, cuffing him, then placing him in the car, where he was doubly unable to defend himself or her, should the need have arisen. How could she have possibly considered him a perp or such a high danger, to be required to be cuffed, then placed in a car, if he was the owner, on the scene?
My two cents.
Gary

Click to expand...

I am sure you are aware of this, as we all do and have seen,...

I have had many Officers look at my rifles, and ask a few mild questions, and then it was over. I have also, although much less frequently, seen Officers, upon seeing a rifle, or even hearing the word "gun" act as if I tried to splash their faces with battery acid. Unfortunately these Officers do exist, either paranoid that someone else has a firearms, or simply do not like guns (besides the one they carry.) I even had to be secured once (told to sit and wait) for a Sargent to come to the scene and confirm my 1915 Lee Enfield was not, in fact, a threat.

For all my trials and tribulations, most of the LEO's I have met were very 2nd Amendment friendly and seemed to almost expect to come across legal gun owners. And I think that is how it should be.

Again, if the job is too much, there are other jobs out there. Cannot be a baker is you are afraid of the oven.

I understand officer safety and in this case, taking control of the firearm was probably justified though I would question the handcuffing. He informed her and produced a license which most criminals do not do.

I had a state trooper take my gun once when there was really no need to. I was pulled over for speeding and the first words out of his mouth were "Good evening sir, do you have a gun on you today?" Obviously he already ran my tag and new I was a CHL holder. No need to disarm in that situation. He kept it until he got a call about a drunk and left my gun on the seat and said bye without a ticket so I didn't complain.

I feel that she did the right thing.

That is all... nothing more to see here

You people are insane. The liberal cockroaches have burrowed into your skulls and laid their eggs. As you wander the streets in a stupor moaing "officer safety" with your arms outstretched and stoping to munch on the corpses of your fallen liberal comrades don't forget that we have a constitution and your rights are worth something. The fact is, she hardly had RAS for the search. He produced a CCW so she knew that any firearm recovered would have been legally possessed. No matter how affraid the Police are the "Officer Safety" bit doesn't get more constitutional. "Excuse me sir, drop your pants in the name of officer safety!" Please. You people need to wake up. No wonder the liberals are winning; with friends like you who needs Obama...

This was a stop, search, COMPLETELY UNSAFE DISARMING and detention based on NOTHING, N-O-T-H-I-N-G! See Terry v. Ohio

What part of the article said that the cop was aquainted with the break in victim... she didnt know for some time I'm sure that that man was in fact the real owner, of the store, the gun or anything he said, until her superior officer(s) came and the facts became verified. Las Vegas is a dangerous place, off the strip, and there are a lot of not so dumb but desperate people there. The general public's safety was also considered in what was very likely what her commanding officer told her to do, by radio or standard procedure resulting from previous incidents. In many situations where there are store patrons present during a robbery, they, and the employees are detained until they are cleared of being suspects... wolves in sheep's clothing.

carnivorous said:

What part of the article said that the cop was aquainted with the break in victim... she didnt know for some time I'm sure that that man was in fact the real owner, of the store, the gun or anything he said, until her superior officer(s) came and the facts became verified. Las Vegas is a dangerous place, off the strip, and there are a lot of not so dumb but desperate people there. The general public's safety was also considered in what was very likely what her commanding officer told her to do, by radio or standard procedure resulting from previous incidents. In many situations where there are store patrons present during a robbery, they, and the employees are detained until they are cleared of being suspects... wolves in sheep's clothing.

Click to expand...

RAS...ok lets see what we have. A crime MAY have been committed based on the call. This man is present at the scene. The man readily identifies himself with two forms of picture ID and offers that he has a licensed concealed firearm. No suspect description has been given. No other individual is on scene and someone made the call so there is obviously a victim aware of what has happened and on scene as well. I don't see where this adds up to RAS that this man is committing a crime, has or will commit one, no less enough to warrant a prolonged detention that is tantamount to an arrest.

ok so after midnight run all red lights when you cant see any headlights, cuz theres no reason to believe a car is coming...

carnivorous said:

What part of the article said that the cop was aquainted with the break in victim... she didnt know for some time I'm sure that that man was in fact the real owner, of the store, the gun or anything he said, until her superior officer(s) came and the facts became verified. Las Vegas is a dangerous place, off the strip, and there are a lot of not so dumb but desperate people there. The general public's safety was also considered in what was very likely what her commanding officer told her to do, by radio or standard procedure resulting from previous incidents. In many situations where there are store patrons present during a robbery, they, and the employees are detained until they are cleared of being suspects... wolves in sheep's clothing.

Click to expand...

Paragraph 3 of the article says: "Things were real different at 5:30 a.m, Jan. 3, however, when Mr. Mitchener called Metro to report the fifth break-in at his office." If Mitchener called the crime in, they had his name, the fact that he was the owner and the fact that he was on the scene.
Am I missing something?
Gary

emsjeep said:

It takes more courage to reveal insecurities than to hide them, more strength to relate to people than to dominate them, more 'manhood' to abide by thought-out principles rather than blind reflex. Toughness is in the soul and spirit, not in muscles and an immature mind."
Alex Karras

Click to expand...

your tag explains the officers point of view quite well i believe... as in having courage to reveal an insecurity, than to hide it to "be nice" and well she had more "manhood" to abide by a thought out principle... not to mention that her job has been deadliest at the least likely times, and she does have a home to return to... just my opinion, not all things cops do that piss you off are unreasonable... toughen your soul, and open your mind to that which is not within your frame of reference, and be free in spirit knowing you thought with a mature mind...

carnivorous said:

your tag explains the officers point of view quite well i believe... as in having courage to reveal an insecurity, than to hide it to "be nice" and well she had more "manhood" to abide by a thought out principle... not to mention that her job has been deadliest at the least likely times, and she does have a home to return to... just my opinion, not all things cops do that piss you off are unreasonable... toughen your soul, and open your mind to that which is not within your frame of reference, and be free in spirit knowing you thought with a mature mind...

Click to expand...

Quite to the contrary in fact. One needs to abide by thought out principle rather than be tricked into being reactionary and self-preserving and forsake it. Freedom comes at a price, at times one may be required to sacrifice personal safety for the cause; the alternative is worse; a government run amok eliminating all personal freedoms for the sake of unattainable safety.