Lenior City traffic stop

[btq96r]

You follow your instincts. We can’t tell from that video what that Officer saw or why he did what he did. And the law doesn’t require him to explain it. Being concerned about it is certainly your right; staying alive is his right, and his duty to his family.

A Memphis Police Officer was just shot to death because he walked up on a convicted felon that was in possession of a minor amount of pot. You never know what people will do.

An Ohio (I think) Police Officer was shot to death while testing a DUI suspect that was armed and had a carry permit. When he tried to cuff the suspect a fight ensued and he was shot. The Carry Permit holder then stood over him and shot him two more times. Hindsight is 20/20. Maybe if that Officer had disarmed him the moment they made contact; he would be alive today. Maybe not; who knows.

Cops are shot all the time and many times it’s not a hardened criminal but someone that is emotionally upset, drunk, or on drugs.

Even though I am not required to do so; I will notify the Officer that I have a HCP and I am armed. Then there will be no surprises and he can let me know how we will proceed.

 

I get all that, I really do.  I don't disagree that officers have the potential to be shot at at any point in the performance of their duties.  But as I'm a big fan of saying, their safety isn't supposed to supersede citizens rights.  I'd submit that's means increased risk is assumed by virtue of the job itself

 

To me, disarming someone without cause runs counter to the intent of the 2nd Amendment.  I'm supposed to be able to be keep and bear arms to protect myself against government tyranny.  Kind of hard to do so if said government can disarm me at will and without justification. 

 

I really wish there was a standard to allow it or not and the officers had to explain and justify any disarmament of a citizen carrying in accordance with the law.  Might help put the issue in perspective.

[DaveTN]

I really wish there was a standard to allow it or not and the officers had to explain and justify any disarmament of a citizen carrying in accordance with the law.  Might help put the issue in perspective.

Any law enforcement officer of this state or of any county or municipality may, within the realm of the officer's lawful jurisdiction and when the officer is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties, disarm a permit holder at any time when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals. The officer shall return the handgun to the permit holder before discharging the permit holder from the scene when the officer has determined that the permit holder is not a threat to the officer, to the permit holder, or other individual or individuals provided that the permit holder has not violated any provision of this section and provided the permit holder has not committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the permit holder.

What part of that is not clear? “Reasonably believes”?

A cop says the guy was acting suspicious; who is the world is going to say “No, he wasn’t”? That makes no more sense than you implying that a Police Officer is required to subject himself to some higher degree of danger simply because he has a job where people may try to kill him.

The only way that could come up is in a trial or citizen’s complaint. I’m not aware of anything that stops this guy from making a citizens complaint if he thinks the Officer was out of line.

Yes, he has a dangerous job and it is beat into his head from the day he starts that if he is killed it will more than likely be because he didn’t have control of the situation. You watch enough videos and read enough training reports of cops being killed because they missed the smallest details and you quickly learn to control the situation. And unless someone is standing beside that cop when he disarms someone, and they see what he sees; they don’t have squat to say about and never will. (Hopefully)

[crossfire]

Biker should have shown us how his plate looked from a few yards away to give us perspective on the stop. That would have helped a bit.

 

 

I agree, he had no problem taking pictures of everything else. Why not the item that caused the stop? I don't think it was right for the cop to grab the gun, like that, but I think we are only getting one side of the story. Just like the poor unarmed black kid that was shot at the auto dealer, he didn't do anything either, he was another good boy shot down by the police, for doing nothing. Until we see the security cameras in the parking lot. 

 

Dave is right in the  post above. If you feel you have a case against the cop, take him to court. Just because your all butt hurt that he disarmed you like that, is no reason to try him on the net, with only your side of the story. If that was me being disarmed like that I would think twice about OC. That is a darn good reason to CC. :2cents:

Edited August 9, 2015 by crossfire

[EssOne]

 Here are some tidbits I learned during my career. I think you can find an application to this stop for most of them,  but not for #6 in this particular case.

 

(1) Nothing about police work is easy or simple.

 

(2) If you lose psychological control of a situation you will probably die for it.

 

(3) .The officer must survive. When one's rights run counter to his survival, that person's rights (temporarily) lose. For the most part the courts agree. 

 

(4) If you don't see the other guy's gun until it is coming out of his holster, you're a dead man.

 

(5)  'Tis far better to apologize for scaring hell out of a citizen than to foolishly avoid scaring hell out of him at the cost of your life.

 

(6) Never eat barbeque in a tan uniform. :pleased:

Edited August 9, 2015 by EssOne

[btq96r]

What part of that is not clear? “Reasonably believes”?

A cop says the guy was acting suspicious; who is the world is going to say “No, he wasn’t”? That makes no more sense than you implying that a Police Officer is required to subject himself to some higher degree of danger simply because he has a job where people may try to kill him.

The only way that could come up is in a trial or citizen’s complaint. I’m not aware of anything that stops this guy from making a citizens complaint if he thinks the Officer was out of line.

Yes, he has a dangerous job and it is beat into his head from the day he starts that if he is killed it will more than likely be because he didn’t have control of the situation. You watch enough videos and read enough training reports of cops being killed because they missed the smallest details and you quickly learn to control the situation. And unless someone is standing beside that cop when he disarms someone, and they see what he sees; they don’t have squat to say about and never will. (Hopefully)

 

What danger did he reasonably believe/perceive during the stop.  I'm not buying it in that video, because the guy didn't show any hostile actions.  Did you see anything suspicious from the biker? 

 

License plate not mounted right on a bike, common enough and good reason for a stop.  But the justification end's there, IMO.  Open carry alone isn't cause for suspicion, he could ask to check the permit, and that's quite alright, but to go straight to disarming someone shows me contempt for the right to carry. 

 

Sorry if I came across as only implying it, I absolutely think police officers are required to submit themselves to higher degree of dangers because of their job.  They're professionals, and professionals should be held to higher standards.  The LEO had his hand on his service pistol, the biker wasn't acting unreasonable in any way, so I think the LEO had control of the situation.  What was running around in his mind may have been a different story, and then we have an issue of police who are afraid of armed citizens, or the public at large.  Which is an entirely different problem set.

 

 

 

I agree, he had no problem taking pictures of everything else. Why not the item that caused the stop? I don't think it was right for the cop to grab the gun, like that, but I think we are only getting one side of the story. Just like the poor unarmed black kid that was shot at the auto dealer, he didn't do anything either, he was another good boy shot down by the police, for doing nothing. Until we see the security cameras in the parking lot. 

 

Dave is right in the  post above. If you feel you have a case against the cop, take him to court. Just because your all butt hurt that he disarmed you like that, is no reason to try him on the net, with only your side of the story. If that was me being disarmed like that I would think twice about OC. That is a darn good reason to CC. :2cents:

 

I can see the bikers reasons for open carry.  If he was wearing enough safety gear, it may not be the easiest to CC a gun in.  Regardless, the point is the fact that open carry, a perfectly legal option in Tennessee and it was at least partly the cause for an LEO to disarm a citizen absent any other evidence.  Very uncool in my book.

 

 

(3) .The officer must survive. When one's rights run counter to his survival, that person's rights (temporarily) lose. For the most part the courts agree. 

 

I cannot say how much I completely disagree with that.  Justifying a loss of rights, even temporally, is a dangerous precedent to set.  Don't police officers take an oath to support Constitution?  How do you reconcile that oath with taking away someones rights absent a trial?

Edited August 9, 2015 by btq96r

[EssOne]

I'd rather not discuss it with you until you go study some law and put your usually drastic emotional response to the slightest impairment of your rights into a proper legal framework.

Edited August 9, 2015 by EssOne

[btq96r]

I'd rather not discuss it with you until you go study some law and put your usually drastic emotional response to the slightest impairment of your rights into a proper legal framework.

 

If you don't want to discuss it, fine.  I'm not being emotional, just calling it as I see it.  Even the slightest impairment is still an impairment, it's not a matter of degrees.

 

I'm just surprised that on a website that is in no small measure inspired by the 2nd Amendment, that people are okay with a citizen who has a carry permit being disarmed absent any evidence.

[Oh Shoot]

...

I'm just surprised that on a website that is in no small measure inspired by the 2nd Amendment, that people are okay with a citizen who has a carry permit being disarmed absent any evidence.

 

To be fair, no "evidence" or "reasonable cause" is required under TN law to disarm a permit holder. You'll have to plead otherwise in a federal court.

 

- OS

[dawgdoc]

So if a LEO in a traffic stops knows that I am carrying because I told him, and he can legally disarm me, how does that work? I am not touching any gun around a nervous cop if I can avoid it. To disarm me on most days, you would have to untuck my shirt and get really close to my body, and I can be ticklish.

Can I say that I will not remove my gun, but I will also not resist?

Seems like a good reason why you should not volunteer that you have a gun.

The one time that I was pulled over in Georgia while armed, and answered yes to the deputy's question about being armed, he just told me to keep my hands in front while he talked with the other driver who he also pulled over.

[btq96r]

To be fair, no "evidence" or "reasonable cause" is required under TN law to disarm a permit holder. You'll have to plead otherwise in a federal court.

 

- OS

 

That in itself is a big part of my issue.  It shouldn't be that way, not if we're going to preserve the intent of the 2nd Amendment. 

 

Now if there is belligerence, or an apparent safety issue, by all means, disarm someone.  But don't do it because you want to be the only one with a gun.

[chances R]

That in itself is a big part of my issue.  It shouldn't be that way, not if we're going to preserve the intent of the 2nd Amendment. 
 
Now if there is belligerence, or an apparent safety issue, by all means, disarm someone.  But don't do it because you want to be the only one with a gun.

Sorry, with all that police have to go through now, I see no problem with him disarming someone as his prerogative. In fact, bet it is not routine but the exception. Small issue, not like an army coming to your home to confiscate your weapons.

[Oh Shoot]

Sorry, with all that police have to go through now, I see no problem with him disarming someone as his prerogative. In fact, bet it is not routine but the exception. Small issue, not like an army coming to your home to confiscate your weapons.

 

Cops generally ask you to turn off your engine. Is that some sort of civil rights violation too, even though you've shown no inclination to run him over or flee?

 

- OS

Edited August 9, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[dawgdoc]

It seems to me that the more people that must disarm, the more chances for a negligent discharge.

[McGarrett]

It seems to me that the more people that must disarm, the more chances for a negligent discharge.

My thoughts exactly.

 

You have 2 nervous people in a tense situation and now have 1 person grabbing a loaded gun out of the other's holster and handling it. Looks like a recipe for trouble.

 

I agree with the officer having a right to disarm but I don't think in this instance it was done very safely.

[EssOne]

It seems to me that the more people that must disarm, the more chances for a negligent discharge.

 

That's true, it's his responsibility to do the disarming without incident. The crappy part is that there are so many different pistols out there, most officers can't possibly be conversant with them all, and that leads to some "manure occureth" situations - especially since so many gun owners these days have custom trigger work done on their guns, not to mention the great number of home-butchered triggers that are unsafe under any circumstances. Bottom line - police work is a dangerous occupation.

[peejman]

So if a LEO in a traffic stops knows that I am carrying because I told him, and he can legally disarm me, how does that work? I am not touching any gun around a nervous cop if I can avoid it. To disarm me on most days, you would have to untuck my shirt and get really close to my body, and I can be ticklish.

Can I say that I will not remove my gun, but I will also not resist?

Seems like a good reason why you should not volunteer that you have a gun.

The one time that I was pulled over in Georgia while armed, and answered yes to the deputy's question about being armed, he just told me to keep my hands in front while he talked with the other driver who he also pulled over.

If you say no, I'll bet you're rather likely to see the business end of his gun. And probably a few of his friends. Not being forthcoming with regard to being armed would likely have a similar end result should the officer find out unexpectedly.


That said, the safest place for a gun is in its holster. The one time I've been pulled over while carrying went very similar to yours. He asked where it was, I told him, and he said leave it there and keep your hands on the steering wheel. Yes sir.

[chances R]

Cops generally ask you to turn off your engine. Is that some sort of civil rights violation too, even though you've shown no inclination to run him over or flee?
 
- OS

Nope.

I agree with the officer having a right to disarm but I don't think in this instance it was done very safely.

I fully agree. Bad things can happen.

[Wingshooter]

If I was the rider, I guess the cop would have pulled me off the bike trying to get my gun out of my full retention Safariland ALS holster. Unless of course he knew where the thumb release button was. Not a cool move IMO.

I just pray I never get pulled over on my way to/from a 3gun match... "Sir, just how many guns and bullets do you have in your car?" :rofl: Edited August 10, 2015 by Wingshooter

[Ugly]

That's true, it's his responsibility to do the disarming without incident. The crappy part is that there are so many different pistols out there, most officers can't possibly be conversant with them all, and that leads to some "manure occureth" situations - especially since so many gun owners these days have custom trigger work done on their guns, not to mention the great number of home-butchered triggers that are unsafe under any circumstances. Bottom line - police work is a dangerous occupation.

If I were the cop and went to disarm him. And if he had anything less than a Glock I would taze him!
:)

Just kidding, I would give him advice though :)

[DaveTN]

If you don't want to discuss it, fine. I'm not being emotional, just calling it as I see it. Even the slightest impairment is still an impairment, it's not a matter of degrees.

I don’t mind discussing it with you at all as long as it stays courteous. As I said before; go do it for a while and then give us your observations. Until that happens you are making statements you know nothing about. Follow the law; Tennessee law. You live in a state that does not recognize your right to bear arms. They can do that because they, not the Federal government, are responsible for law enforcement and the safety of its citizens. If you want a “Right” to carry then get the state to recognize that right. But until that happens our state legislature and our courts and calling the shots; it’s called States Rights; we fought a war over it.
 

I'm just surprised that on a website that is in no small measure inspired by the 2nd Amendment, that people are okay with a citizen who has a carry permit being disarmed absent any evidence.

Court isn’t held on the street and it never will be. If someone thinks their rights have been violated they have recourse.
 

What danger did he reasonably believe/perceive during the stop.  I'm not buying it in that video, because the guy didn't show any hostile actions.  Did you see anything suspicious from the biker?

Just like me you have no idea what was there. I didn’t see the guy come out of the store, I didn’t see if he was acting suspiciously or not; and neither did you. What you and I saw was what the bike rider wanted us to see on an edited video. Was the cop dispatched there because of a suspicious person? Was he dispatched there because of a person carrying a gun? We don’t know.

But I do know this: I have stopped plenty of people that had committed no crimes. I also did it without violating their rights. When a citizen called; we responded. Like most departments we were very busy and counted on citizens a lot to be our eyes and ears. If a person calls in a suspicious person that is carrying a gun, you don’t know that is the only reason they are suspicious. You go find out.
 

License plate not mounted right on a bike, common enough and good reason for a stop. But the justification end's there, IMO. Open carry alone isn't cause for suspicion, he could ask to check the permit, and that's quite alright, but to go straight to disarming someone shows me contempt for the right to carry.

Someone is always going to be upset when someone gets disarmed. I’m not and I wouldn’t be upset if he happened to me. I’ve disarmed people standing in their own homes and had a lot of drama when doing it. I could explain why if I needed to, but I never was asked to; our Command Officers came from the streets they know why it happened. I have absolutely no contempt for anyone carrying a gun.
 

Sorry if I came across as only implying it, I absolutely think police officers are required to submit themselves to higher degree of dangers because of their job. They're professionals, and professionals should be held to higher standards. The LEO had his hand on his service pistol, the biker wasn't acting unreasonable in any way, so I think the LEO had control of the situation. What was running around in his mind may have been a different story, and then we have an issue of police who are afraid of armed citizens, or the public at large. Which is an entirely different problem set.

If you want to call it fear; so be it. You obviously saw more than I saw. But then I have been in that situation and you never have.
 

I can see the bikers reasons for open carry. If he was wearing enough safety gear, it may not be the easiest to CC a gun in. Regardless, the point is the fact that open carry, a perfectly legal option in Tennessee and it was at least partly the cause for an LEO to disarm a citizen absent any other evidence. Very uncool in my book.

I ride a motorcycle. I don’t open carry but on the bike it sometimes shows, especially when getting on or off. The Officer would have had to ask me to put my hands on the bike when he disarmed me because my weapon is secured.
 

I cannot say how much I completely disagree with that. Justifying a loss of rights, even temporally, is a dangerous precedent to set. Don't police officers take an oath to support Constitution? How do you reconcile that oath with taking away someones rights absent a trial?

My privilege to carry a gun comes from the state; not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. I’m pretty sure that is a fact because I was arrested for having a gun in my car.
 

But don't do it because you want to be the only one with a gun.

See that's how it always ends up.

[btq96r]

I don’t mind discussing it with you at all as long as it stays courteous. As I said before; go do it for a while and then give us your observations. Until that happens you are making statements you know nothing about. Follow the law; Tennessee law. You live in a state that does not recognize your right to bear arms. They can do that because they, not the Federal government, are responsible for law enforcement and the safety of its citizens. If you want a “Right” to carry then get the state to recognize that right. But until that happens our state legislature and our courts and calling the shots; it’s called States Rights; we fought a war over it.
 
Court isn’t held on the street and it never will be. If someone thinks their rights have been violated they have recourse.
 

Just like me you have no idea what was there. I didn’t see the guy come out of the store, I didn’t see if he was acting suspiciously or not; and neither did you. What you and I saw was what the bike rider wanted us to see on an edited video. Was the cop dispatched there because of a suspicious person? Was he dispatched there because of a person carrying a gun? We don’t know.

But I do know this: I have stopped plenty of people that had committed no crimes. I also did it without violating their rights. When a citizen called; we responded. Like most departments we were very busy and counted on citizens a lot to be our eyes and ears. If a person calls in a suspicious person that is carrying a gun, you don’t know that is the only reason they are suspicious. You go find out.
 
Someone is always going to be upset when someone gets disarmed. I’m not and I wouldn’t be upset if he happened to me. I’ve disarmed people standing in their own homes and had a lot of drama when doing it. I could explain why if I needed to, but I never was asked to; our Command Officers came from the streets they know why it happened. I have absolutely no contempt for anyone carrying a gun.
 
If you want to call it fear; so be it. You obviously saw more than I saw. But then I have been in that situation and you never have.
 
I ride a motorcycle. I don’t open carry but on the bike it sometimes shows, especially when getting on or off. The Officer would have had to ask me to put my hands on the bike when he disarmed me because my weapon is secured.
 
My privilege to carry a gun comes from the state; not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. I’m pretty sure that is a fact because I was arrested for having a gun in my car.
 
See that's how it always ends up.

 

The whole discuss it or not was for EssOne, ref. post #56.

 

We've railed against our states screwed up perception that gun owners are criminals until proven innocent, but I really don't see why an officer has to disarm a citizen absent a cause.  If I can produce a valid HCP, that should be enough to prove I've been vetted through the system.  At least that's the BS they feed us while we fork over cash.  Absent an HCP, or making threats by all means, disarm and arrest someone.  But you're right, that's a legislative issue.

 

Stopping someone is fine with probable cause, and in the case the positioning of the bikes plates would justify it, which could then lead to questioning about the guys actions in the store.  But if the officer was truly concerned for his safety, why wasn't his weapon drawn from the outset?  Why no commands to place the weapon on the ground while the officer used the cruiser as cover?  From getting out of the cruiser at the 1:50 mark, and disarming the biker at the 2:15 mark, all he did was talk to the guy, including the line at the 2:00 mark, where the officer tells the biker he saw him come out of the store "with a gun on your side and a helmet on.  That looked suspicious."  So the officer knew this guy had a weapon before he even got out of the cruiser, and for 25 seconds, the officer didn't give any commands regarding the weapon, but then decides he needs to disarm the biker once he is is distracted by taking off his gloves to retrieve his drivers license so the officer can check it.

 

Given that, I'm having trouble understanding when exactly the officer developed a (to paraphrase TCA 39-17-1351) reasonable belief that the bikers gun posed a threat to him, the biker, or anyone else.  Absent that I come to the conclusion that taking the bikers gun wasn't about safety, it was about either being afraid of an armed citizen, or he just feels like an LEO should be the only one armed regardless.

[EssOne]

Anybody here who thinks he could live under the kind of precise scrutiny and insistence on perfection this officer has been subjected to in this thread, hold up your hand.

[monkeylizard]

I'm interested in what OS hit on back in post#37. I had never really thought about it until he pointed it out. In this case, if the officer did not have knowledge that the rider had an HCP*, under what authority did he do the disarming? No other place I know of in TN law besides 39-17-1351 gives that authority to disarm a person carrying lawfully (obviously can be done if the carrying is unlawful). Since the rider was in/on his vehicle no crime was being committed in regards to the firearm possession at the time of the stop. In this particular case, the officer observed the rider with the firearm prior to mounting the bike, so he observed a violation of 39-17-1307. That makes the rider susceptible to both stoppage and being disarmed as a felony has been committed and witnessed by the officer**. While I disagree with the snatch-n-grab method, I agree that the officer was within his lawful rights to disarm the rider.

 

But what if the first time the officer saw a rider with an OC handgun was when he rode his bike past the officer? Since he's on his bike, he's not in violation of 39-17-1307 and no felony is being committed and witnessed by the officer. If the officer has no knowledge that the rider has an HCP (or if in fact the rider does not have an HCP and no longer needs one on his own bike), under what authority would the officer be able to disarm the rider? I understand that the disarming is going to occur if the officer wants it to occur, but I want to know if there's an actual legal basis for doing so, or would that be a violation of the rider's rights?

 

 

 

*He would have if he ran the plate, but since the officer said (we don't see them in the video) the plate was partially obscured, it's reasonable to assume he didn't/couldn't run the plate, and therefor had no knowledge of the rider having an HCP.

 

**Remember that the HCP is only a defense to prosecution of 39-17-1307. It doesn't mean that carrying with an HCP is not a felony. It is. We just can't be prosecuted for it. Since a crime is being commited, the officer has every right to make that stop and check for an HCP.

Edited August 10, 2015 by monkeylizard

[Pete123]

I haven't looked at the entire thread.  Having said that, I want to remind everyone the we have law enforcement officers on this board for the same reason we are all here - to enjoy a hobby we all have in common. 

 

Several months ago there were a bunch of postings about law enforcement shootings, several of which I took part in.  Someone posted a comment similar to mine here.  It came out that several of our law enforcement members were feeling alienated and began leaving TGO.

 

I just read where two LEO'S responded to a call and were shot.  They got shot protecting American citizens.  

 

These men and women have a very tough job, where they make split second decisions under stress in a job that doesn't pay that well.  I'm not sure I could make the right call in some of the split second decisions I've seen on news websites. The small percentage of controversial situations make the news while the very vast majority of police activity, which is positive, never gets mentioned.

[chances R]

To my reading, in post #73, possession of a handgun without a permit is a misdemeanor.