LEO's what is safe etiquette when stopped

[manta49]

I'm also going to go out on a limb here and say that in your interactions with law enforcement you probably weren't armed.

Mostly not armed, but if going to the range i would have firearms in the vehicle.

[JohnKSa]

There's a significant difference in being armed and taking firearm(s) to the range.

By definition, the former involves a firearm that is loaded and readily accessible whereas taking a gun to the range generally involves unloaded firearms that are cased and/or otherwise inaccessible to the driver.

An unloaded/cased firearm may be of interest to law enforcement but is unlikely to be a concern. On the other hand, a vehicle occupant armed with a firearm could certainly cause concern to an LEO depending on the circumstances. I make a point of insuring that those circumstances don't arise.

[manta49]

An unloaded/cased firearm may be of interest to law enforcement but is unlikely to be a concern. On the other hand, a vehicle occupant armed with a firearm could certainly cause concern to an LEO depending on the circumstances. I make a point of insuring that those circumstances don't arise.

I understand that but the police had every reason to be careful here when stopping cars and checking their occupants. But them shooting me if i made a wrong move was not a concern.

At its peak the force had around 8,500 officers with a further 4,500 who were members of the RUC Reserve. During the Troubles, 319 members of the RUC were killed and almost 9,000 injured in paramilitary assassinations or attacks, mostly by the Provisional IRA, which made, by 1983, the RUC the most dangerous police force in the world in which to serve.

[JERRYS.]

some states require ccw disclosure when an official police encounter occurs, some do not. in any event, keeping your hands in plain view such as the steering wheel is a good start. an interior dome light being on if at night can also reduce tension.

if you are required to disclose your ccw status or such status might become discovered inadvertently during the encounter it is best to be up front verbally without any physical actions until it is clear of the intentions....

"officer, I have a ccw permit and I am armed. how do you want me to proceed"?

"officer, my vehicle registration/insurance card.... is in the glove box and there is a pistol.... in there. how do you want me to proceed"?

in any case, it is best to make your intentions known because nobody likes surprises.

civility is the lubricant to all relationships/encounters. acting like a responsible adult or acting like a jack-ass, each has their own rewards.

[JohnKSa]

But them shooting me if i made a wrong move was not a concern.

1. "Being smart and careful doesn't mean that a person is terrified or genuinely concerned about being shot." It just means they're being smart and careful.

2. Whether or not you were concerned, had you made the proper (improper would be more accurate, I guess) wrong move with a firearm--one which put an LEO in legitimate fear of their life--you would very likely have been shot. LEOs don't carry firearms just for show.

3. To me it makes sense to avoid circumstances that might alarm an armed LEO. Others might have a different opinion. Some don't like to think about the potential for things to go awry because it messes up their chosen mental picture of the world. All I can say about that is that a person's mental picture of the world has no effect on reality. It either matches reality or it doesn't, but either way reality is unchanged.

For example, I've talked to people who don't lock their doors because they have no concern about someone entering their house uninvited. Either because of their perception about where bad things happen or because of their choice of how they prefer to view the world. They found it "strange" that I tried to convince them that locking their doors was a good idea. That doesn't mean that they are right to feel safer than someone who feels it's important to always lock their doors. It doesn't meant that I'm paranoid because I always lock mine. It just means we have a different mindset.

I understand that but the police had every reason to be careful here when stopping cars and checking their occupants.

I'm sure they do. And I'm just as sure you fully understand the difference between being armed and transporting unloaded/cased firearms and how that difference might reasonably be expected to affect one's interaction with the police.

[Old Bill Dibble]

Reading some of the posts it sounds like advice you would give someone in some police state. Is it that bad in America that you do what instructed by police for fear of being shot an a trafic stop, its the fact that people seem to think thats acceptable i find disturbing. As for what to do it sounds like you had better follow the advice given.

A little drift if I may...

The US is the largest consumer of drugs recreationally in the world and has a correspondingly high crime rate. Practically all violent crime evolves around the sale, production, distribution, purchase and use of intoxicants.

Countries without serious political problems that have high gun ownership rates and low drug use have very low crime rates. What I find disturbing is the fact that this situation is acceptable because people like their intoxicants then suffer a seeming willful cognitive dissonance when it comes to the associated crime.

Bringing it back around...

Practically everyone that the police shoot or shoots a police officer is taking some kind of intoxicant and normally a regular user of the same. Sometimes people with mental issues get shot by the police because they present as someone high on intoxicants.

People that are high on drugs are extremely dangerous. Police know this from multiple violent encounters with them and seeing their handiwork on arriving at a crime scenes every day.

If you don't use intoxicants, don't have any mental issues, present as otherwise normal and non-threatening at a traffic stop then your chances of suffering being shot through some tragic misunderstanding plummet to near infinitesimal lottery winning type odds. There will always be some measure of risk; however small.

The only way to change that is to get rid of every gun.

[849ACSO]

Do cops think a real bad guy is going to let them walk right up to the vehicle window and THEN decide to shoot them?

Uh, yes............ As the paralyzed officer right there in your home state if that's a reality.........He got drilled AFTER he had normal contact with the driver and was walking away. I would tell you to ask others, but they aren't able to tell you.


As a 22 year LEO, I would be plenty comfy by you jut acting normal and courteous so we get through the stop and go our separate ways.

[rebs]

I think we need to understand the position the cop is in. He doesn't know you or anything much about you other then what comes up when he runs your plate number and then you may not be the owner of the vehicle, your friend may have loaned you his vehicle. You could be driving a stolen vehicle that hasn't been reported yet. It is no wonder the cop is very cautious. Give him or her the respect they deserve and tell them you have a gun or weapon, the stop will go much better for you and them. They want to go home to their family at the end of the shift too.

[Glenn Dee]

AS I said before I was a policeman for a few years...

My experience is that 99% of all the people I interacted treated me with all the respect due the office and what I had earned as an individual. But that was a different time.

It seems that today that much of the public has an agenda and that many of the police harbor a deep fear of the people they serve.

[Excoastie]

not a LEO, but it seems to me that it all comes down to using common sense...

Unfortunately as my wife has pointed out on numerous occasions, common sense seems to be going by way of the dinosaurs.

Exco

[Old Bill Dibble]

It seems that today that much of the public has an agenda and that many of the police harbor a deep fear of the people they serve.

Not at all. But I am curious what makes you think that?

[849ACSO]

It seems that today that much of the public has an agenda and that many of the police harbor a deep fear of the people they serve.

The public agenda is the feeling of entitlement.

I have no fear of the people I serve, nor have I noticed it in the ranks of my agency.

I too am curious how you came up with that............

[Glenn Dee]

JMO but the public is better informed and educated than ever before and expect others including the police to met or exceede their job description as public servants. I agree that much of the public has unrealistic expectations from the police and government in general.

Having been a policeman, I've noticed a change in policing towards overcompensation. A much higher reliance on deadly force, a total authoritarian approach to any and every situation. I'm not suggesting that all police have changed or all departments have changed. If I had to guess, I'd say that not even most. However those that do adopt this stance effect the public's perception of all police.

If I were to give an example I'd have to say the technique of using a firearm as a compliance tool. Drawing and aiming a handgun to order someone to "GET ON THE GROUND!" And if they dont? Then what options does the officer have left?.... again just one man's opinion but things have changed and not for the better.

[Old Bill Dibble]

The public agenda is the feeling of entitlement.

Not to drift too much but that is merely the feeling of the people that I deal with the most. This is nothing new though. Criminals have ALWAYS felt that everyone else owes them a living. That is why they are criminals. The rest of the public tends to run from mostly good and hard working people to welfare mommas who try to make as many kids as they can to max out their EBT card filling the world with new thugs. Still, mostly good hard working people who just want to live their lives in peace; free from muggings, burglaries, school shootings, terror attacks and an invasive government.

I do the best I can.

[Glenn Dee]

The standard for non sworn civillians and for the police to use deadly force is being put in fear for one's life or the life of another. The operative word being fear.

If a police officer draw's his pistol and threatens the use of deadly force, and that officer intends to remain within the law... he must be feeling fear. Or has he placed himself above the law?

Please understand I'm not bashing the police. I'm just suggesting that things have changed. The civil exchanges between the police and the public are becoming less common.

I can testify that My local department has some of the least imposing and well mannered and friendly police ever. But if I go one town over it's a different story.

[Old Bill Dibble]

The standard for non sworn civilians and for the police to use deadly force is being put in fear for one's life or the life of another. The operative word being fear.

If a police officer draw's his pistol and threatens the use of deadly force, and that officer intends to remain within the law... he must be feeling fear. Or has he placed himself above the law?

You left out "or serious injury". Also in most states officers may also use deadly force against escaping prisoners although a lot of police agencies don't allow that these days as a matter of local policy.

Also certain law enforcement agencies such as those at Nuclear Power Plants and other high risk facilities are under a looser set of rules to protect the facility or certain items from falling into the wrong hands and causing a catastrophe.

The Garner ruling changed quite a lot. Under common law a lot of felonies were punishable by life in prison or death. That is no longer the case. That is one of several reasons why the police were placed under near the same restrictions as everyone else. I think this is a good thing.

I should also point out that most officers won't verbally threaten the use of deadly force unless the suspect is being provocative. Having the gun out is an indicator but often just precautionary.

[JERRYS.]

millions of officer citizen contacts each day; millions each day.

you have a far greater chance of dying at the hands of your spouse, doctor, dentist, or neighbor than you do from the cops.

[Kimio]

In all of my 4-5 encounters with LEO's I've never had a bad experience when being pulled over.

The single time I was pulled over while carrying was because I had a broken tail light lens that I had yet to fix (happened no more that 40 minutes prior to being pulled over that night).

The officer was very professional and I greeted him as I would any other normal human being and did the following.

- Turned on the cabin light of my car
- waited patiently, ensuring that I did not move until he was at my window with my hands in plain sight
- Immediately informed him that I was armed, and had a permit that legally allowed me to carry concealed
- When I was asked for my license, vehicle registration and my CWP, I first ask permission to reach into my pocket (since the handgun was located on the side I carried my wallet) if not, would he like me to step out of the car so that I may disarm for his safety (He kindly said that was not necessary)

I waited roughly 20 minutes as he ran my license and he came back to request that I get some tape to cover up the broken lens as soon as possible to avoid blinding other drivers at night.

He thanked me and went about his business as did I. Yes, there are bad apples out there, but I've found that 9/10 times, if you're calm and courteous you'll generally be let off with little to no hassle.

If you don't agree with something, you can then file a complaint with your local PD chief or what have you. I've been lucky to have never found the need to do that.

In short, be clear about your intentions, provide as much information as you're comfortable with revealing and just try not to be a jerk. Most LEO's are just doing their jobs and trying to get through the day so that they can get home with that pay check to provide for their loved ones just like most us are trying to do.

[evidrine]

I have had good experiences and bad. I always try to be polite not because they are police officers but because it is a good practice and the right thing to do. I was raised to polite with anyone. I know lots of people In law enforcement. I am not very close to any of them so I do not consider myself biased either way. I have been given tickets, warnings, and have been lied to by more than one officer. I do know that nothing good will come from a bad attitude that can escalate any situation. Let him do what he thinks he has to do and you do what you need to do to get things resolved professionally. Take it up in court if you have to. Signing a ticket is not admitting guilt. In most cases the issuing officer will not bother showing up in court anyway.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[849ACSO]

The standard for non sworn civillians and for the police to use deadly force is being put in fear for one's life or the life of another. The operative word being fear.

Huh??

I've been a full time LEO for 22 years. I've never read the word "fear" in the law.............

Here is an excerpt from Tennessee v. Garner -

----"the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life . . . or in defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury"

Here is the excerpt from the Revised Statutes of Missouri -

----"He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony"

This is from the Illinois Compiled Statutes -

----"However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony."

This is from Kansas-

"A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person."

I could go on and on, but where do you come up with fear?

I've been involved in a shooting. I don't ever recall being afraid. I recall watching a gun being leveled at another officer and thinking "now I HAVE to do something".

You act as though the police are running around jumping off the ground, wide eyed at every bump in the night. I'm more apprehensive of the public's crumby attitude now more than ever, but afraid, not so much.

As far as this:

Also in most states officers may also use deadly force against escaping prisoners although a lot of police agencies don't allow that these days as a matter of local policy.

it's not local policy. It's Tennessee v. Garner, a SCOTUS decision, not a local policy. And it's been around since 1985................

Having the gun out is an indicator but often just precautionary.

The display of a weapon IS NOT considered deadly force.

[A J]

A couple months ago I got stopped by a young game warden for no really good reason except walking in the woods. I didn't have ID on me and the guy started to freak out. I knew it was a BS stop but kept my cool, calmly chatting with him until his "back up" arrived. The "back up" cop was a local deputy. He just laughed and sent me on the way.

Moral of the story: Be nice to LEOs, even if they're not 100% right.

[Old Bill Dibble]

it's not local policy. It's Tennessee v. Garner, a SCOTUS decision, not a local policy. And it's been around since 1985................

Nope. There are other exceptions based on Federal and State Laws and policies for escaping prisoners. Prisoners that are committed to secure penal and jail facilities or being transported between them.

[849ACSO]

Nope. There are other exceptions based on Federal and State Laws and policies for escaping prisoners. Prisoners that are committed to secure penal and jail facilities or being transported between them.

probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

It follows Garner directly and applies to all jails and prisons, regardless of what the state law says. The SCOTUS trumps whatever the state law says, period.

My state still has laws on the books that allow the shooting of fleeing felons and jail/prison escapees, but they are invalid, and have been since 1985.

Try shooting someone who is escaping from prison for felony bad check writing and see where you end up.......... you will likely take his place in prison. There are no exceptions to a SCOTUS ruling that aren't already in the ruling.

[Old Bill Dibble]

I don't have to try it.

You will have to take it up with the USAG:

https://www.justice.gov/ag/attorney-...-14-attachment

B. Escaping prisoners.

1. Unless force other than deadly force appears to be sufficient, deadly force may be used to prevent the escape of a prisoner committed to the custody of the Attorney General or the Bureau of Prisons

a. if the prisoner is escaping from a secure institution or is escaping while in transit to or from a secure institution; or

Or this guy:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/new-yor...tive-1.3131601

Note there was no immediate threat of danger or harm to anyone.

or this guy:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/07/us/ark...ate-shot-dead/

Graves said the guards followed a policy that authorizes the use of deadly force to keep a prisoner from trying to escape a fenced institution.

And lots of other cases.

[Old Bill Dibble]

I guess I should also point out the Garner was a civil case not a criminal one. The criminal standard is still up to the states which is why the laws are still on the books in your state and mine. Officers can still get their pants sued off and go to jail for US civil rights violations but can only be charged with murder and assault if their state laws allow it.

This is why a lot of agencies have made local policy more restrictive.