States begin teaching armed drivers how to interact with police

[tennessee1911]

http://www.wthr.com/article/states-begin-teaching-armed-drivers-how-to-interact-with-police

PHOENIX (AP) — Gun-friendly Arizona is trying to avoid deadly encounters between police and people behind the wheel by teaching armed drivers how they should handle themselves when they are pulled over.

Lawmakers in Tennessee, Virginia and Illinois have enacted laws over the last year that require driver education courses to teach people how to react when they are pulled over. Unlike the guidelines published in Arizona, none of the laws explicitly mentions what to do when armed motorists are stopped.

[tennessee1911]

Is this something new rolled into the HCP course. Honestly I took mine so long ago I don't remember them discussing this.

[Ugly]

Don't know about the HCP course, took mine several years ago as well. 

While his Democrat Reps intentions might be good. The article also states the following paragraph. 

"For instance, the rules say a driver can be arrested for disobeying an officer's order. Gaona said the rule book should tell people that they have a right to refuse an officer's request to search a vehicle."

I wonder if that were added by his direction as well. Do not disobey!

Geez, seems a bit like Brownshirt tactics to me. He also doesn't mention that the man shot in Minnesota was pulled over for suspicion of robbery, he matched the discription and it was an armed robbery. 

Any person should be respectful when pulled over, common sense should also prevail when carrying. 

Perhaps we do need training for those that wouldn't use the utmost caution when dealing with the law.  

[bersaguy]

There was just a discussion on a fishing site I hang out in about the subject of being able to carry a gun while on TVA water ways and according to a new law just passed it states you can legally carry a gun in your boat just as you can your car with or without a CCP. It states that your boat falls under the Castle Doctrine? Some were talking about being unsure about the law and others said it was in fact the law.

My post to it was as follows:  When confronted by an LEO and having a gun in your boat, car or just in public best thing you can do at that point is to follow every request the LEO makes regardless. Even if you know you are right.  The LEO's interpetation of the law may not be the same as yours.

 Best thing is to follow the LEO's orders and let the judge and legal system sort it out. With times like they are it is better to follow orders than is is to get shot or have more charges added to the ones you may already possibly be facing.

That is JMHO but I think it is better to be safe than sorry and live to go home and be with family.

[DaveTN]

Kids should be taught by their parents what to do during a traffic stop; if they don’t know they should find out. Not just about guns, but about everything. I have seen many ridiculous videos by lawyers and statements by people about what their rights are its ridiculous. A lawyer can tell you what is going to happen in the courtroom; a cop can tell you what is going to happen on the street.

For example; certainly you have the right to refuse a search, but you don’t have the right to obstruct the Officer if he decides to search anyway. I never asked to search a vehicle I didn’t already have probable cause to search. I ask just to see how the rest of the stop is going to go. If you have something illegal in the car (drugs, alcohol, whatever) you have a choice to make right then on the spot; cooperate or not. Kids have been told for decades the cops need a warrant to search their car; nothing could be farther from the truth. Parents owe their kids to give the proper info or find someone that can.

How to deal with cops when you have a gun should be common sense; however as we have seen it is not. Cops aren’t without fault either; but that doesn’t help you or your kid if you are dead. A cop just shot a victim reporting a crime to death because he heard a loud noise. From what little bit has been released he will probably go to prison, but that doesn’t help her one bit; there are people that are carrying guns that are improperly trained or have no business with a gun in the first place, Police and citizens alike.

This is the information age; the information is out there. Unfortunately like we have seen here so many times; the information can be wrong. Especially when you start talking in generalities about laws, crossing state lines, etc.

[bersaguy]

23 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Kids should be taught by their parents what to do during a traffic stop; if they don’t know they should find out. Not just about guns, but about everything. I have seen many ridiculous videos by lawyers and statements by people about what their rights are its ridiculous. A lawyer can tell you what is going to happen in the courtroom; a cop can tell you what is going to happen on the street.

For example; certainly you have the right to refuse a search, but you don’t have the right to obstruct the Officer if he decides to search anyway. I never asked to search a vehicle I didn’t already have probable cause to search. I ask just to see how the rest of the stop is going to go. If you have something illegal in the car (drugs, alcohol, whatever) you have a choice to make right then on the spot; cooperate or not. Kids have been told for decades the cops need a warrant to search their car; nothing could be farther from the truth. Parents owe their kids to give the proper info or find someone that can.

How to deal with cops when you have a gun should be common sense; however as we have seen it is not. Cops aren’t without fault either; but that doesn’t help you or your kid if you are dead. A cop just shot a victim reporting a crime to death because he heard a loud noise. From what little bit has been released he will probably go to prison, but that doesn’t help her one bit; there are people that are carrying guns that are improperly trained or have no business with a gun in the first place, Police and citizens alike.

This is the information age; the information is out there. Unfortunately like we have seen here so many times; the information can be wrong. Especially when you start talking in generalities about laws, crossing state lines, etc.

I agree with you 1000% Dave! Teaching needs to begin at home but to many times it goes in one ear and out the other as peer pressure seems to make all the teaching useless. That is one thing I pounded into my boys and they pounded it into their sons and they have never disrespected a police officer yet cause none of them have ever been arrested for anything.........."Knock on Wood again"  I even have 1 grandson that is a Duputy Sheriff in Cheatham County.

I have been stopped a couple times over tha past 10 or so years for different things and if the officer asks me to search my car I give them permission every time after we have the gun situation cleared up which always goes smooth and by the book. 

Kids now days think they know everything and are smarter than Mom and Dad. They are taught a lot of that in public schools. It still never hurts to try and teach them...............JMHO

Edited July 23, 2017 by bersaguy

[DaveTN]

28 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

It still never hurts to try and teach them.

Exactly. I don’t blame the kids. It’s the parent’s responsibility to teach kids what to do when they are in those type situations; not the schools. If the kids are too stupid to understand what they are being told; so be it. But they deserve to hear the truth and know what their options are and how it will impact them, as well as knowing and understanding their rights.

One of the guys I work with said he ask his kids “You know if you try to pull a gun on traffic stop the cops will shoot you; right?” They responded with “Yes”. He said he didn’t think he needed to have that conversation but with the news lately; he thought he should.

Edited July 23, 2017 by DaveTN

[Ugly]

Does that mean the 4th amendment is competent dead? 

What about motorcycle ONLY checkpoints? Which I believe is unconstitutional to begin with but since I'm on a bike and targeted, wouldn't I already be suspect and that be probable cause?

just asking because I'm not sure. 

video of possible planting of drugs:

I'm in no way bashing Leo's, but there are bound to be some out there that could be questionable. 

 

Edited July 23, 2017 by Ugly
Clarify

[chances R]

Police interaction has been part of the HCP course for at least the past 5 years that I am familiar with and is still part of the latest PowerPoint just released.

[peejman]

4 hours ago, DaveTN said:

Exactly. I don’t blame the kids. It’s the parent’s responsibility to teach kids what to do when they are in those type situations; not the schools. If the kids are too stupid to understand what they are being told; so be it. But they deserve to hear the truth and know what their options are and how it will impact them, as well as knowing and understanding their rights.

One of the guys I work with said he ask his kids “You know if you try to pull a gun on traffic stop the cops will shoot you; right?” They responded with “Yes”. He said he didn’t think he needed to have that conversation but with the news lately; he thought he should.

Parent's responsibility?  That's just crazy talk. 

 

 

 

[Pain103]

 I don't see the need. I've never had HCP holder even now with vehicle carry be a problem. It is typically the unlawful possession ones imagine that!

[mikegideon]

2 hours ago, chances R said:

Police interaction has been part of the HCP course for at least the past 5 years that I am familiar with and is still part of the latest PowerPoint just released.

It's so simple. Language warning...

 

[Randall53]

I think that training should go both ways. In recent shootings, very nervous LEO's have been involved. 

Edited July 24, 2017 by Randall53

[btq96r]

57 minutes ago, Randall53 said:

I think that training should go both ways. In recent shootings, very nervous LEO's have been involved. 

I was just going to say, why are we teaching armed citizens how to interact with police when it seems the police quite urgently more need the lesson on how to interact with armed citizens.

[DaveTN]

6 hours ago, btq96r said:

I was just going to say, why are we teaching armed citizens how to interact with police when it seems the police quite urgently more need the lesson on how to interact with armed citizens.

We were taught how to interact with armed citizens. In vehicle stop training we used actors. Some of those actors shot the Officer. The fact that a person is legally carrying doesn’t mean they won’t shoot a cop. I would guess it’s worse now than it was back then; we didn’t have as many people hunting cops.

Philando Castile did everything wrong and it cost him his life. We didn’t see and hear all the evidence, but the jury that did apparently decided a reasonable person would think they were in danger of death or great bodily harm under those circumstances. We don’t know now whether he was going to try to shoot that cop or not.

Justine Damond wasn’t doing anything wrong (and didn’t have a gun). We don’t know why she was shot and the Officer that shot her is refusing to make a statement.

[Randall53]

4 hours ago, DaveTN said:

We were taught how to interact with armed citizens. In vehicle stop training we used actors. Some of those actors shot the Officer. The fact that a person is legally carrying doesn’t mean they won’t shoot a cop. I would guess it’s worse now than it was back then; we didn’t have as many people hunting cops.

Philando Castile did everything wrong and it cost him his life. We didn’t see and hear all the evidence, but the jury that did apparently decided a reasonable person would think they were in danger of death or great bodily harm under those circumstances. We don’t know now whether he was going to try to shoot that cop or not.

Justine Damond wasn’t doing anything wrong (and didn’t have a gun). We don’t know why she was shot and the Officer that shot her is refusing to make a statement.

I understand the training to interact with armed citizens I don't feel that's the same thing I meant. I was referring to the need to add training on how to interact with legally armed citizens. Reciprocate the training given to legally armed citizens. Give both sides the same training so everyone knows what to do and expect. I'd bet, if you could find it, the odds of being shot drop like a rock as to how many times an LEO is shot by a legally armed citizen. That fact should calm down a nervous cop because he knows now, he's very likely not in danger instead of the other way around.  As far as the Castille case. I don't know what happened. I did read it was stated that the LEO asked him for his ID and that was what he was reaching for. I do agree that if Castille was told to at some point to stop and raise his hands, that's what he should have done. Again, I don't know what happened. I still think proper and calm communication on both sides would go a long way.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Randall53

[chances R]

Very unlikely a legally, permitted citizen will shoot a cop.  Statistically people with permits are the least likely to commit a crime and this includes LEO as a group.  Now that doesn't mean LEO should be nonchalant about approaching any vehicle, but as Randall noted, this should create a more friendly interaction once the permit is shown. The Castille case was an unfortunate incident that both sides should learn from.  The Damond case just seems wrong all the way around

[bersaguy]

I know there are some of us that have been stopped by a police officer for some reason or another and have experienced armed civilian / LEO encounters. I for one know of at least 3 or 4 times I have had it happen. I was expecting it because by orders of my doctor I had to have my seat belt system altered to remove the shoulder strap section and just wear the lap belt section. That is done to protect the large amount of mesh I have in my abdomen. She said the Mesh could be torn with just a sudden stop and not hitting anything and she issued a letter I carry in my console to give to a police officer if need be.

That is why I have been pulled over every time was because it looks like I am not buckled up. At least that was the reason given and I have no reason to not believe it to be something else. Each time I was stopped the officer remained in his car and I knew he was waiting for back up and I was correct cause within a few minutes backup arrived. After that both officers approached my vehicle one on each side. I already had my windown down and both hands on top of the steering wheel in clear sight. The officer came up to the drivers side and asked me to step out. I told him I would have to unbuckle my seat belt and he told me to wait and he was going to open my door and when he did he looked and saw that I did have my lap belt clicked. At that point he told me to remain in the vehicle and provide him with  DL and registration. I did provide what he asked for and I also exlained to him about the letter but he said it was not necessary.  He handed my paper back and  told me to have a nice rest of the day but did tell me that I would probably go through this type of stop again as they are in Click-it or Ticket Month and officers are looking for folks not wearing their seat belts. They were both Gallatin police Officers. I also did go through pretty much same type of stop in Hendersonville once and Goodlettsville once and all of the officers were very understanding and two of them did read the letter from the doctor written on her letterhead and I never got a ticket. All that was over 3 years ago now and I guess they quit having click-it ticket month cause I have not been stopped since.

    I will say that every officer I spoke with was very professional and very curtious but every one did not approach my vehicle until they had back up on scene which tells me they are ran my tags and knew there would be a good chance I was armed but none of them ask if I was or asked to see my CCP.

[bersaguy]

2 minutes ago, chances R said:

Very unlikely a legally, permitted citizen will shoot a cop.  Statistically people with permits are the least likely to commit a crime and this includes LEO as a group.  Now that doesn't mean LEO should be nonchalant about approaching any vehicle, but as Randall noted, this should create a more friendly interaction once the permit is shown. The Castille case was an unfortunate incident that both sides should learn from.  The Damond case just seems wrong all the way around

I'm still out on the Castille case but I guess  will accept the findings of the case as it was determind. As for the Damond case. If the officer continues to refuse to give a report on what happened I think he should be told he will be removed from the police force and be charged accordingly. This officer has had several complaints and reports filed against him during his 3 years on the force so evidently he has issues that need to be addressed..............JMHO

[mikegideon]

1 hour ago, chances R said:

Very unlikely a legally, permitted citizen will shoot a cop.  Statistically people with permits are the least likely to commit a crime and this includes LEO as a group.  Now that doesn't mean LEO should be nonchalant about approaching any vehicle, but as Randall noted, this should create a more friendly interaction once the permit is shown. The Castille case was an unfortunate incident that both sides should learn from.  The Damond case just seems wrong all the way around

Just bear in mind that you don't need to be legally permitted to carry a gun in a vehicle anymore. None of us have to worry about the good guys. Well... at least not the ones with some sense.

[chances R]

Yes, understand, thus making the distinction as 'legally permitted'.  As some have made reference, sometimes with a computer check that info may already be available, but of course that doesn't mean the registered owner is the driver nor does it clear passengers.  Approaching any vehicle is right up there with domestics for danger.  I don't blame any LEO for being super cautious.  Given the number of stops/encounters it is a wonder there are not more incidents.

[mikegideon]

1 hour ago, chances R said:

Yes, understand, thus making the distinction as 'legally permitted'.  As some have made reference, sometimes with a computer check that info may already be available, but of course that doesn't mean the registered owner is the driver nor does it clear passengers.  Approaching any vehicle is right up there with domestics for danger.  I don't blame any LEO for being super cautious.  Given the number of stops/encounters it is a wonder there are not more incidents.

Yep. Scary thing.

[bersaguy]

1 hour ago, chances R said:

Yes, understand, thus making the distinction as 'legally permitted'.  As some have made reference, sometimes with a computer check that info may already be available, but of course that doesn't mean the registered owner is the driver nor does it clear passengers.  Approaching any vehicle is right up there with domestics for danger.  I don't blame any LEO for being super cautious.  Given the number of stops/encounters it is a wonder there are not more incidents.

i agree with this 100% but I can guarantee 1 thing. If my Jeep is on the highway I am driving it and if I do have a passenger I know them very well or they are not in my vehicle.............

[DaveTN]

Most of these incidents go down before they find out the person has a carry permit; not that it would matter or even be a consideration. Their actions, appearance, and whether or not they are following instructions (especially when a deadly weapon is involved) is what matters. There is no such thing as a “routine” traffic stop was drilled into our heads as they showed the videos and told the stories of cops being killed on traffic stops.

I think most of us here agree that more training would be good for everyone involved. I also think most of us here would also agree that if a bad guy or a cop is screaming at you to stop as you grab for your gun; you are about to be shot.

[Pain103]

7 hours ago, bersaguy said:

I'm still out on the Castille case but I guess  will accept the findings of the case as it was determind. As for the Damond case. If the officer continues to refuse to give a report on what happened I think he should be told he will be removed from the police force and be charged accordingly. This officer has had several complaints and reports filed against him during his 3 years on the force so evidently he has issues that need to be addressed..............JMHO

 The problem is goverment employees can't be ordered to give a statement and that be used against them in court. Garrity rights. He may have given a statement for internal investigation but not criminal investigation. Also I seem to have read something about their laws in relation to giving a statement. 

 

 

 Either way I'm not against training about interacting with lawfully armed people but I think isn't something we need the legislature doing. It's one of the things I go over with rookies when there in training.