Cop threatens to execute driver over concealed weapon permit(bad language alert)

[Brando]

Originally Posted by speeder

[...] When someone has a CCL, things can go sideways in a hurry if they're doing anything shady and interface with police.

Why would you make such an assumption? It is statistically proven that those who have a Concealed Carry permit are less inclined to break the law or act in a manner to bring law enforcement attention. Unlike those who Carry Concealed without a permit (like criminals) they are the law abiding.

[Rick Lee]

OH recently enacted some much-needed changes in their CCW laws. Looks like this cop doesn't support those changes.

[speeder]

Originally Posted by Brando

Why would you make such an assumption? It is statistically proven that those who have a Concealed Carry permit are less inclined to break the law or act in a manner to bring law enforcement attention. Unlike those who Carry Concealed without a permit (like criminals) they are the law abiding.

Try reading the sentence of mine you quoted again, really slowly if necessary. The part where I say, "if they are doing anything shady..."

[Brando]

Originally Posted by speeder

Try reading the sentence of mine you quoted again, really slowly if necessary. The part where I say, "if they are doing anything shady..."

Yeah I missed that. My bad!

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by speeder

Try reading the sentence of mine you quoted again, really slowly if necessary. The part where I say, "if they are doing anything shady..."

Shady and Concealed Handgun License are usually at odds. In Texas, a person with a concealed handgun license is 5 times less likely to commit a crime than the general population.

[silverwhaletail]

Interesting on many levels.

Shoot/Don't Shoot incidents are challenging. To this day I regret not shooting an illegal immigrant whom had just killed one guy, and was walking toward another vehicle, gun in hand, arm outstretched, preparing to kill the three vehicle occupants whom he mistakenly thought were associates of the guy that he had killed three minutes prior. (the three guys in the car were in the wrong place at the wrong time)

My partner and I were on a car stop at Anaheim Street/Cherry Avenue in Long Beach when we saw the suspect run across Anaheim Street with a gun in his hand. We stalked him into a Mexican Bar parking lot and confronted him as he walked toward the vehicle with the three occupants. We had a position of cover behind an old Cadillac and when we confronted him, he dropped the gun immediately.

In retrospect, we realized that he could have very easily gotten off two or three rounds into that vehicle, striking the occupants from point blank range.

Stupid. We should have capped the suspect. We knew that we were in a position of safety and failed to properly react.

But back to the open carry law...

Our latest training update has given us the "green light" to immediately shoot anyone holding a gun, or anything that we perceive as possibly being a gun.

No more shouting, "Police, drop the weapon!" I was amazed as I watched the video. The new updates are the result of "act/react" studies. Very interesting (and sobering) information.

The open carry guys are going to probably win a few small state court judgements, but ultimately, it is going to cost a few of them their lives. The Open Carry guys are going to continue to "push it" and cops are going to begin shooting them.

When this finally gets to the US Supreme Court, the Supremes are going to decide that the "greater public interest" is served by allowing the police to shoot anyone who wears a gun in public and who's hands are not held above their heads with palms open. (or an interpretation strikingly similar to this.)

The alternative is for the Supremes to rule the other way, in which case the police will simply refuse to contact anyone wearing a gun. So if you want to commit ANY kind of offense, simply advertise that you are open carrying, and the police will simply turn the other way. Why would any cop confront anyone open carrying a gun if the cop is not granted a presumption of immunity???

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by silverwhaletail

Interesting on many levels.

Shoot/Don't Shoot incidents are challenging. To this day I regret not shooting an illegal immigrant whom had just killed one guy, and was walking toward another vehicle, gun in hand, arm outstretched, preparing to kill the three vehicle occupants whom he mistakenly thought were associates of the guy that he had killed three minutes prior. (the three guys in the car were in the wrong place at the wrong time)

My partner and I were on a car stop at Anaheim Street/Cherry Avenue in Long Beach when we saw the suspect run across Anaheim Street with a gun in his hand. We stalked him into a Mexican Bar parking lot and confronted him as he walked toward the vehicle with the three occupants. We had a position of cover behind an old Cadillac and when we confronted him, he dropped the gun immediately.

In retrospect, we realized that he could have very easily gotten off two or three rounds into that vehicle, striking the occupants from point blank range.

Stupid. We should have capped the suspect. We knew that we were in a position of safety and failed to properly react.

But back to the open carry law...

Our latest training update has given us the "green light" to immediately shoot anyone holding a gun, or anything that we perceive as possibly being a gun.

No more shouting, "Police, drop the weapon!" I was amazed as I watched the video. The new updates are the result of "act/react" studies. Very interesting (and sobering) information.

The open carry guys are going to probably win a few small state court judgements, but ultimately, it is going to cost a few of them their lives. The Open Carry guys are going to continue to "push it" and cops are going to begin shooting them.

When this finally gets to the US Supreme Court, the Supremes are going to decide that the "greater public interest" is served by allowing the police to shoot anyone who wears a gun in public and who's hands are not held above their heads with palms open. (or an interpretation strikingly similar to this.)

The alternative is for the Supremes to rule the other way, in which case the police will simply refuse to contact anyone wearing a gun. So if you want to commit ANY kind of offense, simply advertise that you are open carrying, and the police will simply turn the other way. Why would any cop confront anyone open carrying a gun if the cop is not granted a presumption of immunity???

Interesting on many levels.

You regret shooting the guy.

In retrospect, we realized that he could have very easily gotten off two or three rounds into that vehicle, striking the occupants from point blank range.

But he didn't. In fact,

....when we confronted him, he dropped the gun immediately.

Our latest training update has given us the "green light" to immediately shoot anyone holding a gun, or anything that we perceive as possibly being a gun.

Seem to recall you guys already do this and it generally does not go well.

Why would any cop confront anyone open carrying a gun if the cop is not granted a presumption of immunity???

Based on the behaviour of officer Harless and so many of your brethren and even your own comments in various threads on this board what makes you think you guys have earned any presumption of immunity.

[silverwhaletail]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

what makes you think you guys have earned any presumption of immunity.

Well, considering that there are hundreds of officer involved shootings in the US every year, and that fewer than 1% of them result in prosecution of the officer, I would surmise that there is a presumption of immunity.

If you commit an act and there is a greater than 99% probability that the act will not be found to be in violation of the law, wouldn't that lead any reasonable person to believe that the act was lawful?

You are very unread on this topic.

[silverwhaletail]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

Seem to recall you guys already do this and it generally does not go well.

most ignorant post ever on PARF.

I just gave you an instance in which I should have shot a suspect and did not.

For every instance of an officer involved shooting, there are hundreds of instances when officers make the decision to shoot/not shoot, and decide not to shoot.

[speeder]

Originally Posted by silverwhaletail

Why would any cop confront anyone open carrying a gun if the cop is not granted a presumption of immunity???

Are you trying to say, "presumption of innocence"? Because immunity means that you are immune from prosecution for any unlawful acts that you've committed. I'd like to think that police still have to obey policy (law) when taking citizen's lives.

[stomachmonkey]

EDIT: never mind, Denis beat me to it.

[silverwhaletail]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

But he didn't. In fact,

I guess if this instance occurred in a mall parking lot at a mall near your home, and a suspect, gun in hand was approaching your wife and child, and the guy was confronted by the cops, and the cops shouted, "Police, drop the gun!" and the guy shot your child AND THEN the police shot the suspect, you would tell the Channel 5 new guy:

1. "The police told the guy to drop the gun but he shot my child anyway. I'm thankful that the police let the guy make that decision before they shot the guy."

2. "The police saw the guy with the gun pointed at my family. I don't know why they didn't just immediately eliminate the imminent threat. Why didn't they just DO SOMETHING instead of waiting for the guy to shoot my kid?"

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by silverwhaletail

most ignorant post ever on PARF.

I just gave you an instance in which I should have shot a suspect and did not.

Huh?

You are the one stating you regretted NOT shooting the guy and now you want to use the fact that you did NOT shoot him as some sort evidence of your control?

Seems to me you felt you made a mistake.

[silverwhaletail]

Originally Posted by speeder

Are you trying to say, "presumption of innocence"? Because immunity means that you are immune from prosecution for any unlawful acts that you've committed. I'd like to think that police still have to obey policy (law) when taking citizen's lives.

Nope. I mean presumption of immunity.

Exactly like the immunity that we receive when we engage in a police pursuit.

If we follow department procedure (assuming department procedure is not in conflict of current state law), then we have immunity if something "bad" happens.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by silverwhaletail

I guess if this instance occurred in a mall parking lot at a mall near your home, and a suspect, gun in hand was approaching your wife and child, and the guy was confronted by the cops, and the cops shouted, "Police, drop the gun!" and the guy shot your child AND THEN the police shot the suspect, you would tell the Channel 5 new guy:

1. "The police told the guy to drop the gun but he shot my child anyway. I'm thankful that the police let the guy make that decision before they shot the guy."

2. "The police saw the guy with the gun pointed at my family. I don't know why they didn't just immediately eliminate the imminent threat. Why didn't they just DO SOMETHING instead of waiting for the guy to shoot my kid?"

Don't get upset with me because of your indecision.

It was your mistake.

[scottbombedout]

Originally Posted by silverwhaletail

Our latest training update has given us the "green light" to immediately shoot anyone holding a gun, or anything that we perceive as possibly being a gun.

You scare me on many levels.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by silverwhaletail

Nope. I mean presumption of immunity.

Exactly like the immunity that we receive when we engage in a police pursuit.

If we follow department procedure (assuming department procedure is not in conflict of current state law), then we have immunity if something "bad" happens.

The fact that you think that's a good idea scares me more than the fact that they let you carry a gun.

[silverwhaletail]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

Huh?

You are the one stating you regretted NOT shooting the guy and now you want to use the fact that you did NOT shoot him as some sort evidence of your control?

Seems to me you felt you made a mistake.

you posted this.

Seem to recall you guys already do this and it generally does not go well, alluding to the fact what the police always already shoot first and that the fallout afterwards is negative.

And your right, I made a mistake by not shooting that suspect whom had already killed another guy just minutes before. Very bad judgement call by me and my partner. (he concurred.)

[Cloggie]

Is the US at war with itself?

[speeder]

Every situation is unique. Or at least falls into one of several categories. There are times when taking a head shot w/o saying a word would be appropriate and many, many others when a verbal warning to drop a weapon would be deserved before blowing someone away. Once you take someone's life, there is no giving it back. "Sorry, my bad...", doesn't cut it when you've just smoked some guy holding a cell phone who you shot w/o saying a word.

We the citizens need intelligent human beings of sound psych as cops. Badly programmed robots who shoot first in all situations of any "perceived threat" are of no use to anyone.