Disgrace: Circuit Court rules MA concealed carry permits are worthless
posted at 10:57 am on January 6, 2010 by MadisonConservative
I’ve lamented the struggle for people who openly carry firearms, particularly in Wisconsin where that’s our only option to carry. However, Massachusetts, like 47 other states, observes the right of their citizens to carry a concealed weapon – with a permit, of course. However, to cops on a power trip, the law means nothing. Apparently, the same goes for the courts:
The First Circuit Court of Appeals in New England just handed down another horrible Second Amendment ruling, very similar to the ruling that recently came out of Georgia. In the case in question, the court ruled that a police officer acted appropriately when he not only detained a man for lawfully carrying a concealed firearm but confiscated his gun. From the Atlanta Gun Rights Examiner:
According to the case opinion, the lawyer, Greg Schubert, had a pistol concealed under his suit coat, and Mr. Schubert was walking in what the court described as a “high crime area.” At some point a police officer, J.B. Stern, who lived up to his last name, caught a glimpse of the attorney’s pistol, and he leaped out of his patrol car “in a dynamic and explosive manner” with his gun drawn, pointing it at the attorney’s face.
Officer Stern “executed a pat-frisk,” and Mr. Schubert produced his license to carry a concealed weapon. He was disarmed and ordered to stand in front of the patrol car in the hot sun. At some point, the officer locked him in the back seat of the police car and delivered a lecture. Officer Stern “partially Mirandized Schubert, mentioned the possibility of a criminal charge, and told Schubert that he (Stern) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat.”
The officer eventually released Schubert but confiscated both his concealed carry license and his firearm. The court, of course, ruled that all of Stern’s actions were appropriate to “ensure his own safety” and because he could not confirm the “facial validity” of the license.
Let’s take a look at the case. In order for Stern’s actions to be at all justifiable, there has to be reasonable suspicion, articulable by Stern. In other words, he has to be able to say exactly what Schubert was doing that made him suspicious enough to jump out of his patrol car and point his weapon at Schubert’s face and disarm him.
First, Stern claims that he noticed the gun under Schubert’s jacket. Not good enough. Around 200,000-250,000 concealed carry permits are issued in Massachusetts every year. While I have not been able to find an exact count, the fact that the permits last for four years means there are around a million residents of Massachusetts legally carrying a concealed weapon at all times. In a state with seven million people, that means it’s not uncommon for a person to be armed. Stern claims that several other people also saw the weapon and alerted Stern to it. Oh, wait…
However, a subsequent investigation of the incident by the police department produced no witnesses or other proof of Stern’s allegation regarding the passers-by.
Hm. When I was stopped for open carrying, there were two people who reported me to the manager, and the Madison police got both of their names, as well as the name of the manager of the store where I was carrying. Apparently this Dirty Harry couldn’t even stop one witness. Tells you a lot, doesn’t it?
Apparently, the “high crime area” was right in front of a damned courthouse. Schubert was wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase. Schubert brought this up. The court’s response?
We are not persuaded. A Terry stop is intended for just such a situation, where the officer has a reasonable concern about potential criminal activity based on his “on-the-spot observations,” and where immediate action is required to ensure that any criminal activity is stopped or prevented.
Well, too bad we’ve been unable to determine that he had any reasonable suspicion. All we’ve got so far is an older man, in a suit, with a briefcase, with a concealed firearm under his coat. That was enough for the officer to immediately point his weapon at the man’s face and disarm him. Did he ask to see a permit? Why, yes he did…and it didn’t do Schubert a damn bit of good to have it:
Stern continued to attempt to verify the validity of Schubert’s weapons license, but because Massachusetts lacked a centralized database containing such information, the officer soon realized that the inquiry could take a significant amount of time. Thus, about five minutes after moving Schubert into the cruiser, Stern told Schubert that he was free to go, but that Schubert would have to retrieve his gun and gun license from the Springfield police department.
Then what the hell is the point of the concealed carry permit??? All this proves is that any law-abiding citizen confronted by a police officer can have their weapon unlawfully confiscated along with their permit if the officer decides that “he’s the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat”. The permit is effectively worthless. Exactly what did we do about permits and licenses of various types before we expected to have a computer database at our fingertips?
So a cop on a power trip stops a man in a “high crime area”, makes a scene out of the fact that he is legally carrying a weapon, disarms him, and leaves him defenseless in that same “high crime area”. Who exactly did Stern “protect”? This is utterly appalling. The real kicker?
On July 26, 2006, Schubert filed a citizen’s complaint against Stern for his conduct on July 21. As a result of the report, the Springfield Police Commissioner recommended that Stern be retrained on Massachusetts firearms law but found no specific wrongdoing on Officer Stern’s part and did not recommend disciplinary action.
RE-trained? This is an admission that Stern had already been trained on firearms law, and ignored it. That no disciplinary action was taken is disgusting. That no wrongdoing was found is horrific. Ultimately, the fact that the courts upheld this unlawful stop, unlawful search, and unlawful confiscation, is an affront to both the First Circuit Court and the Massachusetts District Court. They view the Constitution as toilet paper.
Keep taking it higher, Mr. Schubert. Maybe we’ll see what the folks who struck down the DC gun ban think of your case.
UPDATE: Thanks to commenter RadClown for correcting me on the number of CCW permit holders in Massachusetts. I misinterpreted what the article stated. There are closer to 250,000 total holders. However, it still means the carrying of a concealed weapon is not uncommon.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
I have a feeling this is but one of many other efforts to do away with the 2nd amendment. This bho and team want us citizens to be un-armed. I don’t think the millions of gun owners will stand still for this. This bho and team is trying to have us all under government control.
L
letget on January 6, 2010 at 11:13 AM
The law be damned to a liberal.
uknowmorethanme on January 6, 2010 at 11:30 AM
This ruling can’t possibly stand on appeal. Just another court plugging tactic by a social engineering “wise___” judge.
Itchee Dryback on January 6, 2010 at 11:44 AM
Sue the state for taking money under false pretenses and selling a worthless license.
Kissmygrits on January 6, 2010 at 12:06 PM
::leftist judges thinking:: Let’s see here. The law is quite clear in this case: the man had a valid concealed carry permit, carrying a legal firearm and was not performing any suspicious or illegal activity. The cop who took his weapon obviously ignored the law. What to do, what to do… I know! We’ll simply ignore the law and work backwards from the fact that “guns are icky”. That’ll work!
I hope that none of the center-right SCOTUS members get sick for the next couple of years. I get the feeling that the First Circuit might be seeing this case again, and not in an affirming way.
Physics Geek on January 6, 2010 at 12:27 PM
Well, playing devil’s advocate, maybe they’re just presuming the police officer innocent unless there’s proof of his guilt. Most governments give police officers a little bit of the benefit of the doubt, and well they should. The officer didn’t have witnesses backing him up, but maybe the lawyer didn’t either.
joe_doufu on January 6, 2010 at 1:02 PM
Uh…the lawyer didn’t need any. All that he was asserting was on the record. The judges just ignored it.
MadisonConservative on January 6, 2010 at 1:13 PM
Correction: That is the total amount of active permits according to your link:
Nevertheless, the officer grossly over reacted to a situation where it was more likely than not that the attorney was carrying a gun legally.
That attorney could have just as easily been a DA, detective, undercover or off duty police officer. Too bad it wasn’t.
RadClown on January 6, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Nope, that’s permits issued in a year. Not held.
MadisonConservative on January 6, 2010 at 1:20 PM
Plus, the permits expire after four years, so you have to take into account that in a four-year period, most of those are renewals. Not all will be, however. So assuming 70-80% of them are regular renewals, you’re looking at 4 x 200k or so, plus the new people getting licenses.
MadisonConservative on January 6, 2010 at 1:23 PM
Sorry, but that’s simply not the case. Here’s the quote again:
That’s the amount of permits in existence, which jumped by 28,000.
Here in FL, with about 18 million people and a much easier application process, I am one of 667,531 CCW permit holders as of 11/30/09. Many others just carry in the glove compartment or console of their cars, which is legal with no permit, but still, no way is there anywhere near 1 million CCW permit holders in MA.
RadClown on January 6, 2010 at 1:56 PM
Hmmm. I think you’re right. Thank you for the correction.
MadisonConservative on January 6, 2010 at 2:28 PM
i guess laws do not matter because the govt can do whatever it want. when will americans get the will to fight back. how much freedom will we have to lose before people wise up?
larry harris on January 6, 2010 at 2:30 PM
“First, Stern claims that he noticed the gun under Schubert’s jacket. Not good enough.”
Yes it is. As a working cop, I can tell you that seeing that a person has a concealed weapon is certainly reasonable suspicion that a crime is being commited. Maybe he is a cop in plainclothes, or a person carrying legally, but you need to detain the person and investigate further. Furthermore, dealing with an armed person, who may or may not be engaging in a criminal act dictates that you have your weapon out and be in a tactically superior position. This means placing them in cuffs and removing any weapons from them and detaining them until you can investigate if their possession of the concealed weapon is lawful or not.
Bad guys conceal weapons, and one recently took a shotgun under a trenchcoat into a federal courthouse in Las Vegas, resulting in the death of a court security officer and the wounding of a Deputy US Marshal. Too bad this perp didn’t get stopped and frisked outside the courthouse, eh?
I’m sorry your state doesn’t have CCW permits. I strongly support having an armed and trained population. Part of the training needs to be about keeping your concealed weapon CONCEALED, and the realities of police work and how to properly interact with law enforcement as an armed citizen. It’s not about a “power trip”, it’s about going home to your family at the end of the shift.
G M on January 6, 2010 at 4:02 PM
Even if he was openly carrying, it’s not illegal to open carry in the state of Massachusetts. In either case, he was committing no crime. Having been confronted by several police officers for lawfully open carrying before, I know there is no need to draw down. Unsecure holster? Safety off? Yes. Pointing your weapon at a person carrying a holstered weapon is totally uncalled for, as he displayed NO suspicious behavior outside of having the gun on his person. He was in a suit and carrying a briefcase.
You can cite someone in a trenchcoat all you like. Does that make all people wearing a trenchcoat suspicious?
The officer, if he was concerned, should have unsecured his weapon and approached the lawyer. His additional actions, as well as his treatment of the lawyer, including threatening him with criminal charges and flagrantly disregarding the law for his own power trip(did you even read the part where he said he was the only one allowed to carry a weapon on his beat?), were misconduct, through and through.
MadisonConservative on January 6, 2010 at 4:27 PM
http://www.tactical-life.com/online/exclusives/10-commandments-of-concealed-carry/
G M on January 6, 2010 at 4:34 PM
It says “Not illegal for class A license holders”. So, if you don’t have a class A license, it IS illegal. How does an officer reasonably know what license an individual seen with a weapon does or doesn’t have?
Having been confronted by several police officers for lawfully open carrying before, I know there is no need to draw down.
You know this how, exactly? I’m curious as to your formal training and experience firearms and the lawful use of deadly force.
G M on January 6, 2010 at 4:44 PM
Related to, firearms and deadly force, I should have said.
G M on January 6, 2010 at 4:45 PM
http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-04/13-stop-and-frisk.html
Detention Short of Arrest: Stop-and-Frisk
Detention Short of Arrest: Stop-and-Frisk.—Arrests are subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, but the courts have followed the common law in upholding the right of police officers to take a person into custody without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony or a misdemeanor in their presence.183 The probable cause is, of course, the same standard required to be met in the issuance of an arrest warrant, and must be satisfied by conditions existing prior to the policeman’s stop, what is discovered thereafter not sufficing to establish retroactively reasonable cause.184 There are, however, instances when a policeman’s suspicions will have been aroused by someone’s conduct or manner, but probable cause for placing such a person under arrest will be lacking.185 In Terry v. Ohio,186 the Court almost unanimously approved an on-the-street investigation by a police officer which involved “patting down” the subject of the investigation for weapons.
G M on January 6, 2010 at 5:00 PM
Reasonable Suspicion Law & Legal Definition
Reasonable suspicion has been defined by the U.S. Supremem Court as “the sort of common-sense conclusion about human behavior upon which practical people . . . are entitled to rely.” Further, it has defined reasonable suspicion as requiring only something more than an “unarticulated hunch.” It requires facts or circumstances that give rise to more than a bare, imaginary, or purely conjectural suspicion.
G M on January 6, 2010 at 5:04 PM
I looked at the case. It still looks to me like the plaintiff’s word against the officer’s. The “facts of the case” you cite are just the plaintiff’s version of events, and at any rate, no one was hurt and the plaintiff got his gun and license back. I think the officer gets the benefit of the doubt.
joe_doufu on January 6, 2010 at 5:04 PM
http://www.policeone.com/police-products/training/articles/1687828-When-you-say-Let-me-see-your-hands-are-you-ready-for-what-might-appear/
G M on January 6, 2010 at 5:19 PM
A class A license is the concealed carry license for citizens of Massachusetts. So if he was legally concealed carrying, he was legal to open carry, as well.
By asking to see it. That apparently wasn’t enough for a gun-grabbing officer who seemed to care more about someone other than him carrying a gun than about leaving a person defenseless in a “high crime area”.
Having talked to current and ex-cops. Having reviewed a number of firearms training programs used by police departments and other agencies. And, as I said, having been approached by officers in similar situations. They did not need to draw on me because the lawful carrying of a holstered firearm is not RAS of criminal activity. The recent court case involving Brad Krause in West Allis addressed this very issue. Other open carriers have also been approached all over Wisconsin…and rarely have officers drawn their weapons. Firearms are lawful to own, and lawful to carry(depending on the circumstances of your state, obviously…for the purposes of this argument, Massachusetts is legal for OC and CC).
The rest of the circumstances of the case point to a cop making a very poor judgment call. This wasn’t a gangbanger or grizzled old man or raving lunatic brandishing a weapon. This was a professional with a briefcase approaching a courthouse like many others do every day. The cop should have stopped him, unsecured his weapon(and covered it at most), and asked to see the permit for the man’s weapon. Instead, he threatened the man with deadly force when the man had committed no crime, and displayed no suspicious behavior. He then confiscated the man’s private property and paid-for permit, and forced the man to travel to the police station to retrieve them. Irresponsible, and unlawful behavior. If the cop was completely in the right, why was he made to re-train regarding firearms laws?
MadisonConservative on January 6, 2010 at 5:19 PM
Why do you keep citing irrelevant examples? You mentioned someone hiding a weapon under a trenchcoat. This was a man with a suit coat on, and a legally concealed weapon, with no intent of harming anyway. Your link there cites the fact that a police officer couldn’t see the gun in the hidden hands of the perpetrator. Stern could see Schubert’s hands, as well as the HOLSTERED firearm. Apples and oranges.
MadisonConservative on January 6, 2010 at 5:22 PM
Older man in a suit carrying a briefcase walking towards a courthouse, with a concealed weapon which is legal in the state of Massachusetts with a permit.
Articulate the suspicion. What’s out of the ordinary?
MadisonConservative on January 6, 2010 at 5:23 PM
Why are you so unwilling to let someone with real training and experience give you a little insight into the realities involved in police work, even if it doesn’t fit your uninformed opinion?
G M on January 6, 2010 at 5:30 PM
Why are you assuming that someone’s opinion is uninformed regarding the law and proper police protocol just because they themselves have not been a police officer?
MadisonConservative on January 6, 2010 at 5:35 PM
I catch a glimpse of a concealed weapon. As the person does not have his “class A” license pasted to his forehead, I know that I have a person who may be committing a crime by illegally carrying a concealed weapon, or a person who might be lawfully carrying.
Now, if you actually had some formal training on the dynamics of deadly force, you’d appreciate how fast someone can present a weapon from concealment and shoot you in the face before you can say “Hi, can I see your Permit?”
What police in the US do didn’t come from a vacuum. Every bit of officer survival training came from at least one officer being killed in the line of duty. Cops have died from not taking contacts with armed, or potentially armed subjects seriously, and people of all descriptions including well dressed ones with briefcases have killed cops.
G M on January 6, 2010 at 5:39 PM
Why are you assuming that someone’s opinion is uninformed regarding the law and proper police protocol just because they themselves have not been a police officer?
You just posted that you’ve “talked to current and ex-cops. Having reviewed a number of firearms training programs used by police departments and other agencies”
It appears you’ve done a very shoddy job if you don’t understand what a Terry stop is or why just walking up to an unknown, possibly illegally armed person is a very bad idea.
G M on January 6, 2010 at 5:43 PM
If the police officer had sufficient training(and the number who don’t is considerable), he would have had his holster unsecured, his safety off, and his hand ON his weapon when he approached the man. If the man moved suddenly, the officer would have had ample lead time on him. The lawful carrying of a weapon is NOT illegal activity. Tucked into his waistband? Brandishing? Other suspicious circumstances or activity? None. If there had been any, Stern would have brought those up in the case. He did not. No reasonable articulable suspicion.
You can talk about cops dying all you like. Cops die for a variety of reasons. According to the documented circumstances of this encounter, the officer was in no danger, and overreacted grievously. Your implication of “you’re not a cop, so you don’t know” is a canard.
MadisonConservative on January 6, 2010 at 5:46 PM
You might want to tell that to the majority of police officers in Wisconsin, and numerous other states that handle open carriers just that way.
If a person is carrying a holstered weapon in a legal manner, that is not reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime being committed. If other circumstances lend themselves towards such a situation, then the officer is obliged to consider them and act accordingly. The mere presence of a weapon obliges the officer only to use caution, not to threaten the life of that law-abiding citizen and unlawfully confiscate their private property.
MadisonConservative on January 6, 2010 at 5:50 PM
This article was not implicating all cops, friend. It was highlighting the precious right we have to lawfully carry and the precipitous fall we could take in the event of further rulings (read: leftist judicial action.) This is a right shared by both officer and civilian, as is, I might add, human nature. The latter tells me not to give cops the benefit of the doubt merely because he wears a badge. I have sober respect for the official but NEVER, EVER more than for myself and the rights I enjoy as a free woman. When these intersect, I will always err on the side of the Constitution/Bill of rights over an officer.
Diane on January 6, 2010 at 6:17 PM
Case opinion here.
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=09-1370P.01A
Schubert lost a 4th Amendment case. The court held a guy walking towards a courthouse with a gun always justifies a stop. Once a man is stopped the officer may take precautions to protect himself. The officer may verify a gun license just as a drivers license; if it cannot be verified in a reasonable time, here given as more than ten minutes, he may confiscate the gun and permit and refer the citizen to the police station.
I guess the most profitable reform would be to demand MA get a 10 minute database search for gun permits.
Schubert brought up the 2nd Amendment on appeal in an improper filing and so the 2nd Amendment was not considered.
MC the courts are triers of fact; if I insist you threw a softball 500 feet into my head, and nobody saw it, they can still rule it happened.
Chris_Balsz on January 6, 2010 at 7:49 PM
http://www.veteranoutrage.com
I am so saddended by this because
I LOVE our policemen and Women..
I never ever ever in my lifetime
want to go down that road of having
to choose between the policeman
or the US Constitution..
Because i will have to choose the
constitution because our forefathers
saw this comming..
Disarming the public and only having
the military and police under
POLITICIANS control
means
Pelosis re-eduaction camps could
very well soon become a reality..
To all the policemen out there
i ask this question?
Have you read the constitution
like all the us military has?
Are you prepared to
help the criminals in congress and the senate
KILL , JAIL and DESTORY all
us citizens who oppose them?
What is the difference between
The DEMOCRATS and PUTIN?
veteranoutrage on January 7, 2010 at 12:13 AM
G M, didn’t we just bail you out?
Kidding aside, I can understand that your job is stressful and potentially deadly. Try and look at this case from the point of view of the law abiding citizen, however. He went to the trouble of obtaining the CCP in the first place. Even if the gun was accidentally exposed, he was still acting in a legal manner as open carry was legal as well. But since the gun was originally concealed, the officer did have a right to verify that the concealed carry was being conducted legally. So far so good?
Now, Officer Stern sticks his drawn weapon in the citizen’s face. At least, that is the description given here. Is that the only recommended tactic? Is that your preferred tactic? If this happened to you in plain clothes, would you be offended at all? I can tell you that it would bother me. Having a gun stuck in your face is a life threatening event. But OK, it is within the realm of proper police procedure.
Next the officer asks for and is handed the CCP. These things have photos and expiration dates on them, just like a driver’s license. At that point, it is game over. Hand back the license (and the gun if you have taken it) and thank the citizen for their cooperation. Maybe give them a little lecture on doing a better job concealing it next time.
Anything past this point is pure power tripping and a gross violation of the citizen’s rights. To verify this, do not ask your police buddies what they think. Ask 100 CCP possessing private citizens. I’m one.
GnuBreed on January 7, 2010 at 1:53 AM
Go ahead, Mr. Stern.
Walk around without your uniform on.
…..Go right ahead.
Hawkins1701 on January 7, 2010 at 2:16 AM
An additional thought here:
A permit to CCW is only issued after a thorough background investigation in the state of Texas. Any felony conviction is an automatic NO. Therefore, when an officer stops an individual that has a CWP that person is required to inform the officer of the permit and whether or not that person is actively armed. This lets the officer know immediately of any weapons that could compromise their safety (or anyone else in the vicinity). Quite often I’ve heard from officers that upon hearing of a CWP upon a stop the officers, although not letting their guard down, are somewhat relieved to immediately understand that they most likely aren’t dealing with a felon. It makes the rest of their law enforcement transaction somewhat more relaxed. And they are grateful for knowing these facts up front.
Robert17 on January 7, 2010 at 6:20 AM
Now, Officer Stern sticks his drawn weapon in the citizen’s face. At least, that is the description given here. Is that the only recommended tactic? Is that your preferred tactic? If this happened to you in plain clothes, would you be offended at all? I can tell you that it would bother me. Having a gun stuck in your face is a life threatening event. But OK, it is within the realm of proper police procedure.
How the stop goes is dependendent on the totality of the circumstances. It’s one thing if it’s a traffic stop for a minor infraction and the driver does nothing suspicious and all the documents are provided and everything is valid and the driver gives you his/her CCW license along with the DL. In the context of spotting an accidentally revealed concealed weapon and contacting what you know is an armed person who may be illegally carrying, the potential threat is serious, and will dictate the tactics you use to control the situation. It’s not done out of disrespect, it’s done to increase one’s chance of avoiding injury or death.
Off duty or plainclothes, would I be offended if I got taken down at gunpoint by on duty officers? Not at all. On duty, all you usually know about an incident you are responding to is what dispatch tells you. All dispatch knows is usually what the person calling them tells them. Say i’m walking down the street off duty and a gust of wind exposes my holstered handgun under my jacket and another person sees the gun, walks around a corner and dials 911. All dispatch can tall the responding officers is man with gun, physical description and location. Guess how that contact will go down. I’d fully expect to get proned out at gunpoint, cuffed and searched until my identity could be verified. Training for off duty/plainclothes incidents tells us to do what the uniformed officers command until the scene is secured. It’s not about chest thumping or posturing, it’s about surviving potentially deadly situations.
G M on January 7, 2010 at 10:20 AM
So you expect to get manhandled by police for legally practicing your second amendment rights. That’s your call. It’s also a horribly sheep-like attitude. By that logic, anyone wearing a trenchcoat, per your earlier example, should be stopped and searched. After all, they could have a bomb under there. So much for the Fourth Amendment. The same would go for someone driving a car. You have no idea whether anyone on the road has a driver’s license. By your logic, the fact that they are driving means they should be pulled over, because any second they could veer off the road, crash into another car, or run someone over.
Your outlook requires assigning guilt and rescinding rights based solely on the exercise of a right, and nothing else. You just said how the stop goes it dependent on the totality of the circumstances, yet earlier you said the simple carrying of a weapon, regardless of the fact that it is entirely legal to do so, is reason enough to strip a person of their rights. Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn expressed similar sentiments several months ago, and it was just as disgusting and outrageous when he said it.
The mere carrying of a weapon in a holster, on its own, is not sufficient cause for the behavior practiced by Stern. Again, open carriers are confronted by police officers all the time, without any of the foolish overreaction that he displayed. Stories galore. The ones that do not think clearly and refuse to respect the rights of those they are supposed to “protect and serve” are the ones who end up in court.
MadisonConservative on January 7, 2010 at 10:44 AM
http://www.officer.com/print/Law-Enforcement-Technology/12-Rules-For-Off-Duty-Conduct/1$29300
Identify, identify, identify
On an emergency call, anyone not wearing a uniform or displaying a badge will be considered a threatening piece of the puzzle until properly identified. This is another important concept: until identified, officers will be considered “a person with the gun” as opposed to “an officer with a gun.” Off-duty officers should be educated not to argue with or point weapons in the general direction of arriving officers. They should allow uniformed officers to restore order, regardless of their rank or duty assignment.
All off-duty encounters should include the off-duty officer repeating the mantra, “Off-duty officer, don’t shoot” or “Police officer, don’t shoot.” This should be repeatedly announced, regardless of whether the off-duty officer can see others present or not.
Every member of every agency should be trained to listen for a similar statement. In training for off-duty situations, all verbal commands should be followed by something that identifies them. For example, “Get on the ground” should be followed by dozens of repetitions of “I am a police officer. Do not shoot.”
No one should carry a firearm without a badge and a cell phone. This rule should include retired and reserve officers. Innovative methods of carrying a badge should be considered. A flat badge worn around the neck can be deployed quickly and in a less threatening manner in high-risk situations.
Although it is in the best interest of the officer to identify himself to fellow officers, it is better if he remains unidentified to the general public.
One method that aids in officer survival is the dummy wallet. Officers should carry their badge and ID in a wallet separate from the one they open to pay their restaurant check or utility bill. All of the police credentials, including business cards, go into the badge wallet. Extra officer safety points are given for the officer who wears a lightweight badge and ID around his neck. This practice may prevent forcing the hand during a personal crime like a robbery.
G M on January 7, 2010 at 10:49 AM
It’s kind of funny that someone who obviously has no training or experience in dealing with real world dangers calls a cop a sheep.
G M on January 7, 2010 at 11:18 AM
http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/podcasts/4th-amendment-roadmap-podcasts/4th-amendment-transcripts/terry-stop-frisk.html
Read this and learn a little, Maddy.
G M on January 7, 2010 at 11:20 AM
Ditch the Argument from Authority. You have no idea of my training or experience.
MadisonConservative on January 7, 2010 at 11:21 AM
Yes, you’ve been over Terry stops a number of times, and it still doesn’t address the level of force used by Stern against Schubert. I’ve been Terry stopped more than once, with a fully visible firearm on my person. I’m one of many who has in Wisconsin, Virginia, New Hampshire, and all across the rest of the country. Evidently you don’t want to read a little. If you did, you’d see countless examples of real-world Terry stops, most of which didn’t involve police officers even removing their weapon from their holster.
You’ve been playing the “if you’re not a cop, shut up” card throughout this thread. It’s tiresome.
MadisonConservative on January 7, 2010 at 11:26 AM
t’s kind of funny that someone who obviously has no training or experience in dealing with real world dangers calls a cop a sheep.
G M on January 7, 2010 at 11:18 AM
Ditch the Argument from Authority. You have no idea of my training or experience.
When I asked you yesterday your training and experience, you answered “Having talked to current and ex-cops. Having reviewed a number of firearms training programs used by police departments and other agencies. And, as I said, having been approached by officers in similar situations.”
Has that changed in the last 24 hours?
G M on January 7, 2010 at 11:37 AM
No, it hasn’t. Your claim of “obviously no training or experience in dealing with real world dangers” not only disregards it, but is arrogant enough to assume you know the extent of it.
MadisonConservative on January 7, 2010 at 11:52 AM
No formal firearms training, never done any “force on force” training, right?
G M on January 7, 2010 at 11:54 AM
Any “weapon retention/disarming” classes?
G M on January 7, 2010 at 11:56 AM
Yes, I have had formal firearms training. I’m not giving you a resume just because you don’t give a damn about anyone’s opinion on proper police conduct if they’re not a police officer. You’ve refused to respond to a number of applications of your logic to other situations. You’ve refused to respond about the Open Carry board which has thousands of accounts of open carry stops. All you’ve done is challenge my credentials. Get over yourself.
MadisonConservative on January 7, 2010 at 11:59 AM
Who taught you Unsecure holster? Safety off? Yes.? Mainstream firearms doctrine regarding safeties on weapons like the 1911 says the safety isn’t disengaged until the weapon is being pointed in at the target and the decision to shoot has been made. Many instructors teach that weapons with safeties like those found on the Beretta 92/M9 should be carried with the safety off, given the difficulty in disengaging that kind of safety as part of the “drawstroke”/”presentation”.
G M on January 7, 2010 at 12:08 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »