Lenior City traffic stop

[EssOne]

I don't have much to say on the primary subject of the thread as I think that btr96, SWJewelTN and others have articulated most of my views reasonably well. I do want to address an argument that I have seen made repeatedly in this thread and elsewhere whenever the subject of interactions between the police and the public has arisen. Variations of arguments that question the standing of those critiquing cop behavior to even do so because they don't have an LE background are just plain bad argumentation. It is one thing to use your background in LE to explain why you do things a certain way. That's a valid argument, but to say that someone shouldn't question a tactic or action because they don't understand what it is like to be a cop is in no way shape or form a valid argument. It is the equivalent of feminists saying that men can't have an opinion of abortion because they lack a vagina or when SJWs say that folks can't question certain behaviors because they aren't of a particular race. It is simply a tactic to silence the other party without substantively addressing the topic actually being discussed. When you say "you need to be a ______ or you wouldn't understand what _____ go through" what you are really saying is that you can't make a strong argument to support your position would rather try to weasel out of the debate by delegitimization of your opponent.

 

I will agree that it is wrong for any officer to revert to this argument early on in any discussion, and should reserve it for the hard cases like the ones I'll talk about below. In all honesty though, I would advise citizens to understand that without that background they could totally misunderstand what is going on and to look before they leap. Here's what I mean.

 

A number of years ago a man killed another man with a hunting knife and took off running up a steep hill on a state highway. One of our officers saw him and cut off his escape with the police car. As was custom in those days, the officer spread eagled the killer with his hands spread out on the trunk and his feet spread wide also. The officer then frisked the man with one hand while holding his service weapon on him with the other. A few minutes later an irate woman went busting into the nearby state police facility demanding to see the Commanding Officer. When the Captain came out to talk to her, she greeted him with an irate demand to know what the hell a state police officer was doing forcing an innocent citizen to push his police car up a hill at gunpoint. That actually happened in the Newhall CHP Area in 1967.

 

As this story illustrates in a bit of an exaggerated fashion, there is a great deal the citizen cannot understand about the actions of policemen unless he has been a cop or unless he has a cop friend or even an officer's supervisor explain it to him. Citizens, even the most well educated and observant ones, have no background in voluminous and complicated police procedures, policies, enforcement tactics, training doctrine, and least of all, case law. A lot of the criticism of officers expressed on internet gun forums is based on a lack of knowledge about many of the things needed to formulate an informed opinion. That plus an angry determination to charge ahead full speed without them. Most of us cops understand that and allow for it in dealing with public criticism. We do our level best to explain why something was done by an officer the way it was. I spent a lifetime as a police supervisor explaining such things to irate citizens. But when some of the people involved in these discussions, regardless of thoughtful and time-consuming explanations offered by officers, insist on pontificating about officers' actions, always in a critical vein, and basing accusations of incompetence/malfeasance on supposition involving no knowledge of any of the things mentioned above, and often on nothing more than having passed the written exam for an HCP, there's really nothing left to tell them but to go try it from behind the badge. In those extreme cases there isn't enough bandwidth on the internet to offer them an explanation they will accept - they always know better, insist on making uninformed statements they are not qualified to make, and not even the most thoughtful explanation from an officer or supervisor will dissuade them from such pontifications. That's when I consider it proper to tell someone to go get some training or study some law, or try it as a cop.  There's just nothing else left to tell them.

Edited August 11, 2015 by EssOne

[E4 No More]

I will agree that it is wrong for any officer to revert to this argument early on in any discussion, and should reserve it for the hard cases like the ones I'll talk about below. In all honesty though, I would advise citizens to understand that without that background they could totally misunderstand what is going on and to look before they leap. Here's what I mean.

 

A number of years ago a man killed another man with a hunting knife and took off running up a steep hill on a state highway. One of our officers saw him and cut off his escape with the police car. As was custom in those days, the officer spread eagled the killer with his hands spread out on the trunk and his feet spread wide also. The officer then frisked the man with one hand while holding his service weapon on him with the other. A few minutes later an irate woman went busting into the nearby state police facility demanding to see the Commanding Officer. When the Captain came out to talk to her, she greeted him with an irate demand to know what the hell a state police officer was doing forcing an innocent citizen to push his police car up a hill at gunpoint. That actually happened in the Newhall CHP Area in 1967.

 

As this story illustrates in a bit of an exaggerated fashion, there is a great deal the citizen cannot understand about the actions of policemen unless he has been a cop or unless he has a cop friend or even an officer's supervisor explain it to him. Citizens, even the most well educated and observant ones, have no background in voluminous and complicated police procedures, policies, enforcement tactics, training doctrine, and least of all, case law. A lot of the criticism of officers expressed on internet gun forums is based on a lack of knowledge about many of the things needed to formulate an informed opinion. That plus an angry determination to charge ahead full speed without them. Most of us cops understand that and allow for it in dealing with public criticism. We do our level best to explain why something was done by an officer the way it was. I spent a lifetime as a police supervisor explaining such things to irate citizens. But when some of the people involved in these discussions, regardless of thoughtful and time-consuming explanations offered by officers, insist on pontificating about officers' actions, always in a critical vein, and basing accusations of incompetence/malfeasance on supposition involving no knowledge of any of the things mentioned above, and often on nothing more than having passed the written exam for an HCP, there's really nothing left to tell them but to go try it from behind the badge. In those extreme cases there isn't enough bandwidth on the internet to offer them an explanation they will accept - they always know better, insist on making uninformed statements they are not qualified to make, and not even the most thoughtful explanation from an officer or supervisor will dissuade them from such pontifications. That's when I consider it proper to tell someone to go get some training or study some law, or try it as a cop.  There's just nothing else left to tell them.

Although some people's stupidity is astounding, did this really happen? Is this just a "sea Story"??? OMG! I would NOT have been able to keep a strait face in that circumstance! :rofl:

[Oh Shoot]

Although some people's stupidity is astounding, did this really happen? Is this just a "sea Story"??? OMG! I would NOT have been able to keep a strait face in that circumstance! :rofl:

 

I believe anything. As my shrink friend used to say, "People. They're the worst." ;)

 

The worst witnesses anyway.

 

Remember Baltimore not long ago, a woman swore on camera she saw a cop run  a guy down and shoot him in the back,  turned out perp that shouldn't have even had a firearm had simply been chased and nabbed, no gunfire at all.

 

Something similar a week or two after the main whoopdedoo in Ferguson too I remember vaguely, more than one person said a cop shot somebody, turned out the perp fired a shot or dropped his gun firing it, something or other.

 

- OS

Edited August 11, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[EssOne]

Although some people's stupidity is astounding, did this really happen? Is this just a "sea Story"??? OMG! I would NOT have been able to keep a strait face in that circumstance! :rofl:

Yes, it really happened. Probably one of the funniest books that could ever be written would be one that told of all the true stuff like this that happens in police work.

[E4 No More]

I've seen and heard stupid crook examples during the time that I was a LEO, but that's the first stupid citizen complaint that I've heard - at least on that level. That's great!!

[crossfire]

I believe anything. As my shrink friend used to say, "People. They're the worst." ;)

 

The worst witnesses anyway.

 

Remember Baltimore not long ago, a woman swore on camera she saw a cop run  a guy down and shoot him in the back,  turned out perp that shouldn't have even had a firearm had simply been chased and nabbed, no gunfire at all.

 

 

 

- OS

If it's the same story, it was run on "Fox news" and their own reporter in Baltimore was the one that broke the story. Then the woman came on saying that she saw the whole thing.

[Ugly]

A plate can be illegally mounted and still be legible. For example, this is illegal in TN (don't know about CO). It's too low to the ground, it's too far inboard from the rear of the bike, it's mounted vertically, and it's not lighted. Disregarding the law, its also a really stupid place to put it.

A couple of years ago Florida passed a law making verticle tags and wheelies punishable with a $1000.00 fine. That'll save us from ourselves!

[Garufa]

A couple of years ago Florida passed a law making verticle tags and wheelies punishable with a $1000.00 fine. That'll save us from ourselves!

 

Vertical tags are in fact legal in TN.

[Ugly]

Vertical tags are in fact legal in TN.

I'm guessing it became a problem for the plate scanners or quick id.

It's all about the wheel tax here anyway :/ Edited August 11, 2015 by Ugly

[DaveTN]

I don't have much to say on the primary subject of the thread as I think that btr96, SWJewelTN and others have articulated most of my views reasonably well. I do want to address an argument that I have seen made repeatedly in this thread and elsewhere whenever the subject of interactions between the police and the public has arisen. Variations of arguments that question the standing of those critiquing cop behavior to even do so because they don't have an LE background are just plain bad argumentation. It is one thing to use your background in LE to explain why you do things a certain way. That's a valid argument, but to say that someone shouldn't question a tactic or action because they don't understand what it is like to be a cop is in no way shape or form a valid argument. It is the equivalent of feminists saying that men can't have an opinion of abortion because they lack a vagina or when SJWs say that folks can't question certain behaviors because they aren't of a particular race. It is simply a tactic to silence the other party without substantively addressing the topic actually being discussed. When you say "you need to be a ______ or you wouldn't understand what _____ go through" what you are really saying is that you can't make a strong argument to support your position would rather try to weasel out of the debate by delegitimization of your opponent.

I wasn’t trying to say he couldn’t understand. I was simply saying I don’t believe that he would put his life in danger because he believes it’s a violation of someone’s right to disarm them. When your senses tell you to disarm someone; any cop will follow that. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous. But I really can’t have an intelligent discussion about that because I couldn’t see the guy in the video, didn’t see what the cop saw as he was walking out of the store, and didn’t see what he was doing when the cop disarmed him. It must be these old eyes, because some folks here saw a lot more than I could see.

I don’t mind anyone voicing their opinion on what they think they would or wouldn’t do, but don’t imply that a cop is expected to put themselves in danger because a person has a carry permit, or is open carrying a gun…. It’s ridiculous.

Now having said that could this cop be someone that disarms everyone he stops because he doesn’t think they should carry? Of course that’s possible; but I can’t make that leap on what I saw.

[btq96r]

I wasn’t trying to say he couldn’t understand. I was simply saying I don’t believe that he would put his life in danger because he believes it’s a violation of someone’s right to disarm them. When your senses tell you to disarm someone; any cop will follow that. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous. But I really can’t have an intelligent discussion about that because I couldn’t see the guy in the video, didn’t see what the cop saw as he was walking out of the store, and didn’t see what he was doing when the cop disarmed him. It must be these old eyes, because some folks here saw a lot more than I could see.

I don’t mind anyone voicing their opinion on what they think they would or wouldn’t do, but don’t imply that a cop is expected to put themselves in danger because a person has a carry permit, or is open carrying a gun…. It’s ridiculous.

Now having said that could this cop be someone that disarms everyone he stops because he doesn’t think they should carry? Of course that’s possible; but I can’t make that leap on what I saw.

 

TGO wasn't the only site I discussed this video on, because believe it or not, I do seek informed opinions other than my own, including from subject matter experts.  So I'll just leave these comments here to speak for themselves.  They are all from current or former LEO's just like those here on TGO.  Only difference is their jurisdictions were not in Tennessee, but I would think the dangers of the situation at hand transcend state lines easily enough.

 

 

-----

 

I can't speak for other officers, but I always let the person's attitude dictate the need to or not to disarm someone for my safety. My attitude toward the person I stopped played a pivotal role in their attitude.

 

99% of the traffic stops I did with a CCW holder were uneventful. If they were kind enough to let me know they were CCW, I was cool with that. I'd just tell them don't show me yours and I won't show you mine. Did what I had to do and moved on.

 

I knew of officers who would immediately want to take control of the persons weapon upon knowing they were CCW. They'd always run the SN to find out if it's stolen or not and unload it prior to returning it, telling the owner not to load until they were away. Every time I heard of an officer doing that, I always thought of them as being scared.

 

As for this video, that was a chicken #### thing to do by the officer. He was scared.

 

-----

 

Judging his body language, he was scared. He should take off the gun and swap his badge for a parking meter attendant patch.

 

-----

 

As I write this, I cannot remember ever disarming someone for my safety during a routine traffic stop. I never felt the need or felt so uncomfortable that I would take an individuals weapon for my personal comfort (lack of a better term).

 

After watching the video, the action was plain stupid and the officer is lucky his head didn't get shoved in.

 

Watching crap like this pisses me off to no end because it just escalates and provokes incidents for no reason, and furthers the rift between LE and citizens.

 

-----

 

I wouldn't say the officer would be scared of you, per se. They're more scared of the weapon and I feel it stems from how they're trained and lack of leadership.

 

-----

 

^^^You take the weapon out of the equation, total different reaction from the officer. You ask any officer how the would handle a armed civilian vs an unarmed civilian, you'll probably get two different answers. It shouldn't be like that, but it is. Why? I really don't know. I feel it's how they are trained and a lack of leadership.

 

-----

 

Where I was a cop, there were a LOT of guns, as you know. In the academy they beat it into you from Day 1 that officer safety trumps everything. They show you the videos of the Texas constable getting jumped by three Mexicans and shot with his own weapon along with lots of other videos that show similar situations. You cant help but leave the academy being paranoid that anyone you encounter might jump you/stab you/ shoot you etc. ANYONE can be a bad guy.

 

For me, I was fortunate that I had some older seasoned guys who were able to tone that down for me after the academy and explain/remind me that most people are not criminals and should not be treated like it without cause "just to be on the safe side". I was told point blank that if I didnt want the risks involved with doing the job properly, that I should find a safer line of work. The light bulb came on and being a cop was a lot more enjoyable after that. The default became that I was out there to help people, not look for reasons to arrest everyone I came into contact with.

 

In my experience, most cops today never make that transition, and in most cases they dont get that "chat" from the older veteran cops. So, they stay in that mindset of 1* (one ass to risk) and that your rights and/or your life come second to their safety.

 

I also knew many who were just straight up drama queens who liked to play up the potential-hero or paranoid cop thing. The ones who even off duty act like they could be called upon at any second to jock up and go save the world. Sit at home and have the scanner or their radio on at all times. Pull people over when they are off duty.

 

Power and adrenaline are very addictive drugs to some personalities. Some guys settle out and become solid cops. Some guys dont. But by the time you figure out which ones dont you cant get rid of them.

[DaveTN]

TGO wasn't the only site I discussed this video on, because believe it or not, I do seek informed opinions other than my own, including from subject matter experts.  So I'll just leave these comments here to speak for themselves.  They are all from current or former LEO's just like those here on TGO.  Only difference is their jurisdictions were not in Tennessee, but I would think the dangers of the situation at hand transcend state lines easily enough.

Thanks for sharing our comments. Are you a Special Operator?

[McGarrett]

What's a special operator?

Edited August 12, 2015 by McGarrett

[Spots]

What's a special operator?

That's what I was wondering? As in a special forces operator? What does that have to do with a cop snatching a weapon from the holster in an unsafe manner?

Sent from the backwoods

[Pain103]

https://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/tncode/

 

55-4-110.  Display of registration plates -- Manner -- Penalty for violation.

  (a) The registration plate issued for passenger motor vehicles shall be attached on the rear of the vehicle. The registration plate issued for those trucks with a manufacturer's ton rating not exceeding three-quarter (3/4) ton and having a panel or pickup body style, and also those issued for all motor homes, regardless of ton rating or body style thereof, shall be attached to the rear of the vehicle. The registration plate issued for all other trucks and truck tractors shall be attached to the front of the vehicle. All dealers' plates, as provided in § 55-4-221, and those registration plates issued for motorcycles, trailers or semitrailers shall be attached to the rear of the vehicle.

( B) Every registration plate shall at all times be securely fastened in a horizontal position to the vehicle for which it is issued so to prevent the plate from swinging and at a height of not less than twelve inches (12'') from the ground, measuring from the bottom of the plate, in a place and position to be clearly visible and shall be maintained free from foreign materials and in a condition to be clearly legible; provided, if a motorcycle is equipped with vertically mounted license plate brackets, its license plate shall be mounted vertically with the top of such license plate fastened along the right vertical edge. No tinted materials may be placed over a license plate even if the information upon the license plate is not concealed.

 

That part I bolded was added a few years ago and it allows vertical mounting on motorcycles. There could be a reason for disarming him but nothing in that video would make me as an officer disarm that person. But problem with it is you only see the view from the rider.

[Pain103]

That's what I was wondering? As in a special forces operator? What does that have to do with a cop snatching a weapon from the holster in an unsafe manner?

Sent from the backwoods

  He is trying to become a ninja.

[btq96r]

Are you a Special Operator?

 

Nope, just plain old short bus special. :P

[Clod Stomper]

He is trying to become a ninja.

Oh well then...

I have one of those bumper stickers "2b1, ask1".

And I'm a ninja. So, ummm, lemme know. Edited August 12, 2015 by Clod Stomper

[Pain103]

I'm too clumsy to be a ninja so I won't have any questions.

[conn_air7]

All in all, not that big of a deal. It was handled well by the rider and the LEO for the most part. The situation could have gone differently, but nothing ever goes perfect with LEO's when a gun is involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DaveTN]

That's what I was wondering? As in a special forces operator? What does that have to do with a cop snatching a weapon from the holster in an unsafe manner?

Absolutely nothing. But the posts he said were from Cops were posted on a military “Special Operations” forum. I was just curious if he was a “special Forces Operator”.

[crossfire]

Nope, just plain old short bus special. :P

From another website from btq96r. "Just so we can see how others feel about this, let me share some comments from a local gun centric website where I first saw this video. Two of the three were cops, all are older gents in their 60's, with two (one LEO, one non LEO) being Vietnam vets...obviously, there is still a lot of work on this issue".

I guess I'm the "non LEO, older gent", 68 soon to be 69 to be exact, can you explain what being a Vietnam vet has to with this? Maybe you can also explain..."obviously, there is still a lot of work on this issue".

 

 

Also, I agreed the LEO made a dumb move. (post #53http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/89881-lenior-city-traffic-stop/?p=1294964) which you left out along with over half of that post when you put it up on the other site. I don't care that you copy an paste my posts to another site. I just don't like the fact that you used only part and that changed the context of the post. :2cents: 
 

Edited August 12, 2015 by crossfire

[btq96r]

...can you explain what being a Vietnam vet has to with this?  Maybe you can also explain..."obviously, there is still a lot of work on this issue".

 

 

Also, I agreed the LEO made a dumb move. (post #53) which you left out along with over half of that post when you put it up on the other site. I don't care that you copy an paste my posts to another site. I just don't like the fact that you used only part and that changed the context of the post. :2cents: 
 

 

I apologize if you felt you were quoted out of context.

 

Demographic information is just to help put the comment in respective on who it comes from.  The "obviously" part was about changing minds on the issue that it's okay to disarm an armed citizen without that citizen being a threat.  As with any internet site, the echo chamber effect can kick in, and I wanted to demonstrate that consensus elsewhere is different from that of the board. 

 

As to the tactics of the gun grab, it's near universal that the methods the officer used from the snatch to placing it in his back pocket without clearing it were not smart or safe, even from those who support the disarming as justifiable.  I think even the officer's supervisory chain would look at how he went about it and apply corrective action or retraining on some level.  So I felt it best to leave well enough alone on that and focus on the debate of whether or not the officer was justified in disarming the biker in the first place.  

[DaveTN]

The "obviously" part was about changing minds on the issue that it's okay to disarm an armed citizen without that citizen being a threat.  As with any internet site, the echo chamber effect can kick in, and I wanted to demonstrate that consensus elsewhere is different from that of the board.

Who on this forum said it’s okay to disarm someone that is not a threat?

[btq96r]

Who on this forum said it’s okay to disarm someone that is not a threat?

 

That was through the opinion that the biker didn't present a threat.  Your defense of the officer is he could have seen something we didn't to perceive a threat in accordance with TN law.  We've been disagreeing on that since page 3.

Edited August 12, 2015 by btq96r