Knoxville PD apologizes for open carry incident in Wal-Mart

[Smith]

You are so locked in on the idea that your carry permit gives you some special Constitutional right and that some Police Officer is so set on violating some right (that you don’t even have) that you are blinded to any facts.

While I understand and support your initial idea (not in the quote) of compliance and officer safety, please explain what special rights you are referring to? Surely you are not suggesting that the 2nd isn't a valid Constitutional right are you?

[molonlabetn]

You and I have never agreed on this and I doubt we ever will. There is no law in any state that requires a Police Officer to put life in danger. If a suspect is armed I was not playing 20 questions with him or being distracted by conversation until the scene is secure. I would order you to your knees with your hands on your head; if you failed to comply I would keep you at gun point until other Officers arrived; at which time you would forcibly be placed on the ground. If at any point your hands moved towards your weapon you would be shot. You or your surviving family members could line up to sue me or whoever you like.

As I have explained before you have no idea why you are being stopped. You are so locked in on the idea that your carry permit gives you some special Constitutional right and that some Police Officer is so set on violating some right (that you don’t even have) that you are blinded to any facts.

The AG Opinion…. (And we have pretty much determined they don’t mean much) you are quoting has to do with whether or not “passive resistance†is enough to justify a charge for resisting arrest. It that case is was specifically addressing a person that sat in a car and refused to get out. There is nothing in that opinion to even imply that the Officers can’t forcibly remove the person from the vehicle.

Now please explain to me how you got from that opinion to “In TN, it is not an offense to refuse to obey a lawful order given by an officerâ€

To even suggest that someone not comply with the orders of Police when firearms are involved is ridiculous.

I agree that we disagree, but I think you did miss the intent of my message. I'm not looking for a reason to 'resist' an officer of the law (or any authority, for that matter), but in the circumstance of simply being seen with a gun and for no other reason being accosted in a confrontational manner, I am not going to simply hand over my weapon. They can take it... I won't put up a fight or anything, like you seem to be implying, but in the absence of other circumstances there is no reason or requirement for me to do or say anything at all.

And this isn't entirely about having a carry permit, either; if confronted for any reason I am only required to identify myself, and you know that. If the situation warrants that I be arrested, forcibly disarmed or searched they will be perfectly fine as long as they can articulate later their justification for doing so. Like you said, I potentially don't have a clue why they are accosting me... it's up to them to do their jobs properly and determine the facts. It's sad that you think it's okay for law-enforcement to assume off-the-bat that every person they encounter is a criminal, AND treat them so. There's a difference between the survival skill of being vigilant and cautious, and acting like a jack-booted-thug. What you are suggesting is the equivalent of pulling over every driver at gunpoint to ensure they are licensed, and arbitrarily searching their car for 'officer safety'.

Come on, man, you've got to see that there's a middle ground where a cop can be both firm and courteous... I'm not suggesting much, just a "I'd like to see your permit" instead of "get on the ground and let me grope you and take your weapon". I know that doesn't happen in 99% of encounters... why? Because it's un-necessary when the cop can find out very quickly whether or not further investigation is warranted, by IDing the person.

And I'm not suggesting that I would, or anyone should, always not comply with police... but you can bet that my manner will certainly reciprocate the treatment which I receive. And that is no less than should be expected. Obviously from the opinion which I referred to, doing nothing at all in a precarious situation is not unacceptable. Take it for what you will, but without contradicting legislation or judgment it is as good as law, and certainly applicable to the situation which I have described involving a simple encounter.

[molonlabetn]

While I understand and support your initial idea (not in the quote) of compliance and officer safety, please explain what special rights you are referring to? Surely you are not suggesting that the 2nd isn't a valid Constitutional right are you?

Now ya' done it...

[Smith]

I do what I can!

[jgrauman]

It's sad that you think it's okay for law-enforcement to assume off-the-bat that every person they encounter is a criminal, AND treat them so.

I'm not suggesting much, just a "I'd like to see your permit" instead of "get on the ground and let me grope you and take your weapon". I know that doesn't happen in 99% of encounters... why? Because it's un-necessary when the cop can find out very quickly whether or not further investigation is warranted, by IDing the person.

very good points molon. I have a hard time understanding why so many police officers have a problem with law abiding citizens carrying legally in the first place, be it open or concealed.

[towerclimber37]

a good reason to "resist" an officer of the law?

how about what happened in Wisconsin a few days ago?

that ba$tard shot 6 people before they killed him.

I'm with Eddie...if it smells funny, I'm going to be wary.

I don't care if you've got a tin badge, a tin whistle or a tin halo.

A police officer is simply a guy with a badge and a gun. Until I know that I'm not in danger from him, I will treat him accordingly.

If that makes folks mad...well, you can get glad in the same pants you got mad in.

[DaveTN]

While I understand and support your initial idea (not in the quote) of compliance and officer safety, please explain what special rights you are referring to? Surely you are not suggesting that the 2nd isn't a valid Constitutional right are you?

Of course it’s a valid Constitutional right; according to the courts it’s not an individual right.

You aren’t suggesting that having a carry permit gives him some right that a non-carry permit holder doesn’t have are you?

If you are stopped by the Police and arrested for no crime other than carrying a firearm, I would say that carrying a firearm is a right that you do not have. Would you agree?

</O:p

[The Rabbi]

Of course it’s a valid Constitutional right; according to the courts it’s not an individual right.

You aren’t suggesting that having a carry permit gives him some right that a non-carry permit holder doesn’t have are you?

If you are stopped by the Police and arrested for no crime other than carrying a firearm, I would say that carrying a firearm is a right that you do not have. Would you agree?

That's not exactly accurate. Some courts have ruled it an individual right and some have not. In any case, it is a right in TN.

As for the carry permit, yes it does give a right (or privilege as they put it) to the holder: he can carry a loaded handgun in non-prohibited places/

If he is arrested for exercising his rights then I would say his rights are being denied. WOuldn't you? Didn't the police chief in Knoxville?

[Smith]

A police officer is simply a guy with a badge and a gun. Until I know that I'm not in danger from him, I will treat him accordingly.

If that makes folks mad...well, you can get glad in the same pants you got mad in.

In the words of Barney Fife, "this badge represents the law and when I'm wearing it it means I represent the law."

Sure they are only a guy with a badge with a gun .........and the full weight of the United States Government.... and Constitution..... State Legislature.... the State..... and the local municipalities, authority representing them.

[molonlabetn]

Of course it’s a valid Constitutional right; according to the courts it’s not an individual right.

You aren’t suggesting that having a carry permit gives him some right that a non-carry permit holder doesn’t have are you?

If you are stopped by the Police and arrested for no crime other than carrying a firearm, I would say that carrying a firearm is a right that you do not have. Would you agree?

</O:p

Here's the thing, regardless to whom specifically the the 'right' applies, the language is pretty clear that no infringement of that right whatsoever is authorized. It is impossible to restrict the individual, and the group or country remain free.

Interpretation is a flawed process. Even though some districts say that it is not an individual right, it certainly isn't unanimous.

[DMark]

...... The AG Opinion…. (And we have pretty much determined they don’t mean much)......

Well, since I'll be seeing the AG later this week, reckon I'll need to let him know that.

[wareagle]

I've not read through the 20+ pages of text, but recent pages bothers me greatly. It is probably true that few if any state legislation has been passed that would intentionally place a police office in risk. I am concerned that some seem to place departmental policy in front of law.

Basically, law enforcement officers take an oath to enforce law in a manner that is consistent with departmental "mission statements", goals, values, policies, etc. The officers personal beliefs or departmental policies never trump the law.

BAsed on some of the comments in recent posts, it seems that some be treading on a slippery slope.