Lenior City traffic stop

[DaveTN]

You are disagreeing that the Officer couldn’t have seen something we didn’t see when the camera is on top of the bikers head?

What I (and others) have been saying is that you don’t know what that Officer saw. But as I also said; you have recourse. If a cop disarms you and you feel your rights have been violated you are free to make a complaint or sue him.

[crossfire]

Reply to btg96r

 

 

My post http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/89881-lenior-city-traffic-stop/?p=1294964 agrees with you, where we disagree is the fact we are only getting one side of the story. The biker didn't present a threat, is only seen thru the eyes of the camera and what the Biker had to say. Until we get the LEO side of the story it's hard to say why he felt a need to disarm him.

Edited August 12, 2015 by crossfire

[btq96r]

You are disagreeing that the Officer couldn’t have seen something we didn’t see when the camera is on top of the bikers head?

What I (and others) have been saying is that you don’t know what that Officer saw. But as I also said; you have recourse. If a cop disarms you and you feel your rights have been violated you are free to make a complaint or sue him.

 

I'm not disagreeing with it, but the evidence isn't there to support it, and in my estimate the evidence present negates it.  The officer never articulated any threat, and his body language never hinted at it either.  The entire stop was by the book in that he was courteous, gave a reason for stopping the guy, then all of a sudden, felt a need to disarm him when the bikers hands were nowhere near the weapon.  The officer did have his hand on his own weapon, but that should be common during the approach at any stop, right?  If so I wouldn't consider that abnormal, and even if it's not standard procedure, it comes across as prudence on the part of the officer.  The officer even explained taking the gun at the 2:49 mark as "the gun's just being taken for my safety at this time."  So, no indication of a threat. 

 

He's was forthright with the biker on everything, offering explanation when asked, so not saying anything about a threat from the weapon, just citing safety after he had taken it makes me infer infer that the officer didn't see a threat that justifies disarming the biker, he just didn't want the biker having a weapon during the encounter.

[TNWNGR]

I watched the video, observed the improper display violation and what the camera showed of the officer taking the gun away from the rider. The stops really a non issue so I'll set that aside. The riders comments about being eyed by the police are intresting. You come out of a store wearing a helmet probably with a camera on top of it have on riding apparal and go to a preformance sport bike and don't expect to be noticed? Then you mess around with a rear mounted gear bag, put on gloves and such and ride out. How visible the handgun was during all of this would be interesting to know.

Unknown to some here motor cycles like in the video are high theft items some makes more so than others, so trained officers pay attention. So yes, the bike and rider garnered attention enough to observe the tag violation. When the gun was noticed and how visible it was is about the only thing that puzzles me. I'm not even going to try and get inside an officers head I know nothing about to try and figure anything else out about the disarming thing.

In the end its a one sided video posted from one persons viewpoint and has generated eight pages of comments, some solicited from another forum.

[E4 No More]

It's the officer's right to just not want him to have a weapon while he's dealing with the biker. It's just the way that he went about the entire encounter that I take issue with - particularly snatching the gun.

[btq96r]

It's the officer's right to just not want him to have a weapon while he's dealing with the biker.

 

No, it's within the officer's authority to "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" per state law.  Doing it just because doesn't jive.  I'm not seeing where that reasonable belief with regards to protection existed, and that's my whole issue.

[crossfire]

No, it's within the officer's authority to "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" per state law.  Doing it just because doesn't jive.  I'm not seeing where that reasonable belief with regards to protection existed, and that's my whole issue.

:wall:

[TNWNGR]

No, it's within the officer's authority to "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" per state law.  Doing it just because doesn't jive.  I'm not seeing where that reasonable belief with regards to protection existed, and that's my whole issue.

 

Respectfully, and in no way condescending or demeaning your thought processes here but your trying to figure out something that happened somewhere else. That you weren't there to observe and question and was posted by the person who was stopped. Is it for the sake of argumentation or curiosity? Any retired or career police officer who'll even allow themselves to be drawn into a fruitless discussion  on this is probably going to give a different opinion than another officer. Those opinions will vary by whatever region of the country the officer works, the officers level of education and experience. Yes, there are variables involved in the interpretation process. You've pretty much nitpicked this one to pieces and unless the officer in question jumps in with a response its a dead issue.

[monkeylizard]

No, it's within the officer's authority to "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" per state law.  Doing it just because doesn't jive.  I'm not seeing where that reasonable belief with regards to protection existed, and that's my whole issue.

 

We can argue "reasonableness" until the cows come home, but that's something that is and will continue to be defined by a judge or jury. What you don't seem to be understanding is that no jury in this state is going to disagree with ANY officer who chooses to disarm an HCP holder for the duration of a stop regardless of any other factors, including a complete lack of any aggression on the part of the stopee. In a police officer's line of work, it is reasonable to think that any encounter can go south quickly and therefore removing a firearm is always going to be considered a reasonable action by a LEO. You may not agree with that scope of "reasonable" but it doesn't matter what you think. Or what I think. Or what any of us think unless we are on a jury determining reasonableness. Good luck convincing 11 other people who have never so much as touched a gun that the officer wasn't reasonable.

Edited August 13, 2015 by monkeylizard

[btq96r]

:wall:

 

It seems we don't see eye to eye yet.  :rofl:

 

 

Respectfully, and in no way condescending or demeaning your thought processes here but your trying to figure out something that happened somewhere else. That you weren't there to observe and question and was posted by the person who was stopped. Is it for the sake of argumentation or curiosity? Any retired or career police officer who'll even allow themselves to be drawn into a fruitless discussion  on this is probably going to give a different opinion than another officer. Those opinions will vary by whatever region of the country the officer works, the officers level of education and experience. Yes, there are variables involved in the interpretation process. You've pretty much nitpicked this one to pieces and unless the officer in question jumps in with a response its a dead issue.

 

I'm just discussing the event.  Nitpicking is something I do, I'm a big fan of critical analysis.

 

 

We can argue "reasonableness" until the cows come home, but that's something that is and will continue to be defined by a judge or jury. What you don't seem to be understanding is that no jury in this state is going to disagree with ANY officer who chooses to disarm an HCP holder for the duration of a stop regardless of any other factors, including a complete lack of any aggression on the part of the stopee. In a police officer's line of work, it is reasonable to think that any encounter can go south quickly and therefore removing a firearm is always going to be considered a reasonable action by a LEO. You may not agree with that scope of "reasonable" but it doesn't matter what you think. Or what I think. Or what any of us think unless we are on a jury determining reasonableness. Good luck convincing 11 other people who have never so much as touched a gun that the officer wasn't reasonable.

 

Being engaged by a citizen who has a carry permit, is open carrying, and is showing no signs of belligerence is a statistical improbability, even with a very skewed p-value.  That's why I find it unreasonable. 

 

I'm certain you're right that a jury would side with the officer...but I find that a issue of ignorance about firearms ownership, the permit process and general firearms responsibility as much as anything.

Edited August 13, 2015 by btq96r

[monkeylizard]

That may be true, but it's the way the law works.

[E4 No More]

"No, it's within the officer's authority to "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" per state law.  Doing it just because doesn't jive.  I'm not seeing where that reasonable belief with regards to protection existed, and that's my whole issue."

 

When the officer reasonably believes it's for his protection; not you. You don't get to define anything here.

 

No idea why my quote button isn't working. :shrug:

Edited August 13, 2015 by SWJewellTN

[EssOne]

And the flagellation of the expired Equus ferus caballus continues unabated.

[btq96r]

When the officer reasonably believes it's for his protection; not you. You don't get to define anything here.

 

EssOne had a good post about the term reasonable belief and how he viewed it.  I think allowing officers to define a term, and not using some common or standardized legal definition is a slippery slope.

Edited August 13, 2015 by btq96r

[EssOne]

Under no circumstances does the definition of reasonable cause or probable cause impede the officer's authority to use his own judgement in defending himself when he believes it necessary. Whether anyone likes it or not, officers have discretion to act to protect themselves according to the dictates of circumstances without having to operate with the strict letter of some standardized legal definition. Sorry, you can't put cops in that particular bottle. It just won't wash.

Edited August 13, 2015 by EssOne

[btq96r]

Under no circumstances does the definition of reasonable cause or probable cause impede the officer's authority to use his own judgement in defending himself when he believes it necessary. Whether anyone likes it or not, officers have discretion to act to protect themselves according to the dictates of circumstances without having to operate with the strict letter of some standardized legal definition. Sorry, you can't put cops in that particular bottle. It just won't wash.

 

An officer has to defend that judgement from legal consequences and even public opinion, which can bring about legislative changes.

 

As for protecting themselves, if it's reactive to a specific event I'm likely to be fine with it, but preventative protection taken against the public should have a higher bar.

[macville]

An officer has to defend that judgement from legal consequences and even public opinion, which can bring about legislative changes.

 

As for protecting themselves, if it's reactive to a specific event I'm likely to be fine with it, but preventative protection taken against the public should have a higher bar.

 

This. An officer should be able to articulate at the time of disarming why he "reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals." If he can not do that at the time, and I believe they should have to give a reason when they do so, then it's just based on feelings and that's not right. I think it's as much protection for the officer as the person because it would help keep them out of trouble if they can give a valid reason when they temporality suspend someone's rights.

[EssOne]

I think this thread has far exceeded any good that may be derived from it by constantly restating the same themes and contentions. So I think I'll pursue the rarest of activities and go talk about guns. I'm done here.

[E4 No More]

"An officer should be able to articulate at the time of disarming why he 'reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals'".

 

I'm not a psychologist, psychiatrist, counselor, nor do I know you. That's reason enough for safety. I'm not even a cop anymore and I keep an eye on people OC for this very reason. I won't fault a LEO for the same. Get your panties in a wad all you want, but that ain't gonna change.

[McGarrett]

[URL=http://s36.photobucket.com/user/McGarrett50/media/e1b9492129273ce7c192cbfb8efbc5f889590f7082680c823acb806ec26b37cb_zpsafnw1y7y.jpg.html][/URL]

[DaveTN]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaJzcpiiwVw

[Moped]

I have to confess that I quit reading this after page 6, because every post seemed to start leading in a circle.  I have to say this one of the reason I don't like open carry.  If the civilian had been carrying concealed, I feel more than likely there would have never been a traffic stop at all. IF you feel you have to open carry for some reason, then use a holster that has some bit of retention.  Anyone could have walked up and disarmed this guy and then turned around and used the weapon on him.  Not smart.

 

As for the actions of the officer, I had no problem with him pulling this guy over.  He gave a valid reason for the stop. What I didn't like is him just reaching out and snatching this guy's pistol.  Seems to me it would have been better for the officer to have stated that he knew the guy was armed and that the pistol should stay in it's holster and then asked to see his HCP. I also didn't like him not taking the time to clear the weapon and stow it properly, even if he had to walk back to the car and stow it there, after first clearing it.  Big safety no no in my book.

 

Other than that, I thought both individuals handled themselves well.  The officer was courteous and for the most part professional and the rider was not an ass to the officer. 

[EssOne]

I think this thread has discovered the secret of Eternal Life on this earth.

[Ugly]

At a minimum the rider learned a life lesson with open carry, what if it were a thug that snuck up and snatched his pistol?
Not good!

[macville]

"An officer should be able to articulate at the time of disarming why he 'reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals'".

 

I'm not a psychologist, psychiatrist, counselor, nor do I know you. That's reason enough for safety. I'm not even a cop anymore and I keep an eye on people OC for this very reason. I won't fault a LEO for the same. Get your panties in a wad all you want, but that ain't gonna change.

 

Somehow I don't think that would hold up in court because it's not any more of a reason than, "because". "Reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection..." is the key here and simply not knowing someone is not a good enough reason. They should be able to articulate behavior that is erratic, dangerous, or criminal to meet that standard.