View Full Version : Cop Disarms Burglary Victim for Her “Safety”
Submariner
01-14-10, 08:04
Leaving the victim handcuffed and helpless may have made Officer Rogers feel safer when she locked his Glock 19 in her cruiser while awaiting back up to clear the building; however, it put his life in jeopardy. If the burglar had still been around, the officer may have been able to fend for herself, but the productive citizen would have been a helpless target.
VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Handcuffed, disarmed for obeying the law
Charlie Mitchener is a 61-year-old general building contractor with an office near Patrick Lane and Fort Apache Road in Las Vegas. He holds permits allowing him to legally carry concealed weapons in Nevada, Florida and Utah.
Over the past three years, his office has been broken into five times. "Three of those occasions involved me interacting with Metro," he wrote to me recently. "Each of the occasions began the same: my introduction, my presentation of my Nevada drivers license and my concealed firearms permit. Prior to today, each Metro officer simply replied thank you, proceeded with his work and then when complete there was a conversation about firearms."
Things were real different at 5:30 a.m, Jan. 3, however, when Mr. Mitchener called Metro to report the fifth break-in at his office.
"Vin, I hope I did not see the future this morning," Charlie e-mailed me. "Today was drastically different."
The responding officer was a lady cop, officer J. Rogers, badge number 13525.
"Upon presentation of my (firearms permit), the officer asked if I had the weapon on me to which I replied yes. She then said to spread my legs and put my hands behind my back. I complied and she then handcuffed me. While doing so, she said that she wanted to make certain 'that we were all safe.' "
Officer Rogers stripped Mr. Mitchener of the Glock 19 he was carrying, took the weapon and locked it in her patrol car.
"Bear in mind that she had yet to clear my office (she was waiting for backup for clearing)," Charlie writes. "So, while remote, there was the possibility that the bad guys were still in my office and would come rushing out, finding me, to their delight, handcuffed. Apparently I was not included in her comment 'that we were all safe.' It is always nice when law-abiding citizens, particularly myself, are disposable.
"An hour or so later, when she had completed her paperwork, she came back in the office; I was in the rear and did not see her enter. She came to me and said that she had put my weapon in the second drawer on the left in the receptionist's desk.
"She then said that she could tell that I was upset with being handcuffed 'like a common criminal.' I explained that I was extremely upset and told her that it was out of respect to her that I provided my (firearms permit) and that the Second Amendment did have some meaning. She replied that the reason she did what she did was because she did not know if I was a bad guy or not. ... I thought to myself, 'How absurd, I apply by the law to obtain permits, and yell it from the housetop that I have a permit and am carrying, just as I presume all bad guys do.'
"I asked if she was following procedure to handcuff me and remove my weapon to which she did not have a good answer, other than I was larger than her. ... It certainly reminded me of the stories in New Orleans after Katrina regarding confiscating weapons from the law-abiding citizens."
Another officer told Charlie that, based on J. Rogers' badge number, she had probably only been on her own for less than six months and was probably not secure in what she was doing. "It certainly makes me want to provide all the information the next time my office is broken into," he adds.
I talked to Charlie on Tuesday. He had called the concealed permit division that morning, and been referred to Internal Affairs, where he reports a detective told him, "It all depends on the officers, that if they think it's the safest thing to do they can do that. And he said it's best not to bring a weapon in this kind of situation."
Ah. So after going through all the rigmarole required to obtain a concealed weapons permit, it's best if a business owner who is the first to arrive at his office in the dawn hours to find it's been broken into not carry a weapon? Where the hell would the cops suggest would be a better circumstance into which to carry our legal self-defense weapon -- a toddler's birthday party at Chuck E. Cheese?
I contacted Metro about this incident Tuesday. Late Friday, a spokesman confirmed Mr. Mitchener's account as "generally accurate," stating the officer "acted in a way that was in the interest of her safety."
Charlie Mitchener followed the law. He has trained at Front Site and with Tactical Response and continues to regularly visit the range. Yet, "In an instant, I am in handcuffs (at 61 years old, this was a first), and there were no bad guys in handcuffs with me, just the guy who thought he was doing things correctly," he writes.
We should not be required to apply for any "permit" to carry a concealed weapon in the first place. Despite this, Mr. Mitchener did everything required of him by law, ordinance and Metro instructions.
The officer handcuffed and disarmed him "so that everyone would be safe"? What a bunch of bull. If the burglar or burglars had emerged, they would have been confronted not by two armed law-abiding good guys, but instead by one small, frightened officer and a handcuffed and disarmed legal occupant. This rendered Mr. Mitchener "safer"?
Please note that if Mr. Mitchener had not followed law, ordinance, and Metro request, if he had carried a firearm in his waistband without ever seeking a permit or informing the officer he had it, the tiny officer would have had no probable cause to disarm him, and he would likely have remained armed throughout the entire encounter. Thus, he was punished, degraded, and treated like a common criminal because and only because he attempted to follow law, ordinance and Metro's legally dubious "instructions."
The cops don't get it. The Constitution does not say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless such infringement makes an officer of the government feel safer." The biggest reason the American populace are armed was never to fight off bears or wild Indians but to make agents of the government feel unsafe -- really, really unsafe -- should they try to take away our rights. That's why a citizen militia is "necessary to the security of a free state."
If these arrogant, uniformed employees of ours really want to treat us as the enemy, they may eventually get their wish, at which point they will discover they're vastly outnumbered -- and "backup" is never quite close enough to solve the problem they've created for themselves.
America in 2025, gals: Keep at it, and it can be your own private Afghanistan.
Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal, and author of "Send in the Waco Killers" and the novel "The Black Arrow." See www.vinsuprynowicz.com/ and www.lvrj.com/blogs/vin/.
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/handcuffed-disarmed-for-obeying-the-law-81088092.html
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-14-10, 08:39
Please note that if Mr. Mitchener had not followed law, ordinance, and Metro request, if he had carried a firearm in his waistband without ever seeking a permit or informing the officer he had it, the tiny officer would have had no probable cause to disarm him, and he would likely have remained armed throughout the entire encounter. Thus, he was punished, degraded, and treated like a common criminal because and only because he attempted to follow law, ordinance and Metro's legally dubious "instructions."
That is an interesting point, I don't know the real legalities here. In a big picture sense it would be interesting that a CCW holder is required to tell an officer that the are carrying, but a BG can ignore the question. Probably not totally relevant during a break-in, but could an officer walk down the street and ask people if they are carrying- and a CCW holder would have to answer, but everyone else can ignore the cop.
Has arguing 2A with a beat cop ever worked?
If that was the path she wanted to follow, it seems the more prudent thing would have been to disarm him, and then if you want to secure him, take him out to the car.
lawusmc0844
01-14-10, 08:52
I hope she at least gets suspended from her duties and harshly reprimanded, it is things like this that make me trust the police less and less. I wonder if any of them realize that a law-abiding citizen is way more likely to announce his CCW, or even go through the process of obtaining one instead of some baggy pants wearing hood-rat gangsta with his "fol-five" shoved inches away from his nuts. :rolleyes:
I still support LE as much as anyone else here, but how do we maintain trust if there are officers that believe only they rate to have a firearm???
decodeddiesel
01-14-10, 09:07
Lawsuit territory pure and simple. This man should contact the NRA and a good Attorney then proceed to file a lawsuit against the officer in question and the LVPD.
Back in 1991, I had just been made manager of the gun shop I worked at, been given keys and the security code, etc.
I got a call from the security co. at midnight stating that the alarm had gone off and that there had been a break in. The shop was directly across the street from the VA State Police Headquarters, but criminals aren't necessarily the sharpest marble in the bag.....
I grab my Beretta 92F and a couple spare mags and get over there as fast as I can. The county police had just gotten on the scene as I pulled up and as I identified myself, one of them asked "You got a gun?" I responded that I did. The same officer said "Follow me!".
He put me at the back entrance of the building where the guy had driven a stolen truck through the loading gate, and with these words "Stay here and cover the back, he might still be inside and might make a break for it.", left me to go help his brother officers continue the search.
When another cruiser pulled up and shined their spot on me, I slowly placed the Beretta on the deck and approached them with my hands open and visible, explaining who I was and why I was there. They said that they'd caught the guy hiding in the bushes on the State Police campus....and told me to go retrieve my weapon.
So, different time, but I think the same thing would probably happen again here. We've got pretty switched on local LE.
John_Wayne777
01-14-10, 10:11
Lawsuit territory pure and simple. This man should contact the NRA and a good Attorney then proceed to file a lawsuit against the officer in question and the LVPD.
It's unlikely that a lawsuit would get anywhere. The courts would probably view an officer treating an armed individual with caution as a legitimate officer safety concern.
He has trained at Front Site and with Tactical Response
(emphasis mine)
I'd be nervous about being downrange too! :p
In all seriousness, this officer screwed up. Hopefully someone in her office will fix the problem for the future. Probably not.
Happens a lot actually. No different than how some highway troops deal with permit holders on a traffic stop (right or wrong).
Based on the minimal amount of information news articles reveal, I don't like to speculate, however...
A) You have a "green" troop who was probably trained to disarm all gun carrying persons (criminals or citizens) during her training/FTO (which could point to a training issue regarding procedures when encountering legitimate persons who are authorized to carry).
B) It's all about what she can articulate/how she felt at the moment in time in question - she's the first/lone officer on scene, presumably (again based on limited information provided by the article) much smaller in stature than her "unknown" contact/complainant.
She may have felt it necessary to temporarily "detain" the person in question while verifying that this person was infact, the caller (and that he/she was clear of wants/warrants). Having a CCW doesn't mean the person carrying is exempt from having a warrant (although it IS very rare to see a permit holder have an active warrant in the system).
Does this particular situation suck for the business owner? Yes. Should patrol have handled this differently? Yes.
Hopefully the LE agency/admin will share this example with all of their troops in future in-house training. Generally speaking, the majority of patrol is very favorable towards permit holders...
Submariner
01-14-10, 10:32
It's unlikely that a lawsuit would get anywhere. The courts would probably view an officer treating an armed individual with caution as a legitimate officer safety concern.
Why pay lawyers?:D
There is an alternative: Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Citizen Review Board. (http://www.citizenreviewboard.com/)
Mission Statement
The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Citizen Review Board (CRB) is an independent agency created to receive and review complaints of misconduct filed by any aggrieved person involving Las Vegas Police Officers and/or Corrections Officers. Misconduct includes any improper act, omission or decision directly affecting the person or property of an individual due to any violation of LVMPD Policies and Procedures.
The Board is composed entirely of civilian volunteers whose purpose is to make objective determinations on the merits of every case and respect the rights of both officers and complainants.
CRB members may recommend disciplinary action, if findings show that misconduct occurred, or may recommend additional training or changes in existing policy where warranted.
SWATcop556
01-14-10, 10:33
I've disarmed people with CCW's before but under different circumstances. Sounds like a training issue. I don't see it as being lawsuit worthy and don't think it would fly here in a Texas court.
tracker722
01-14-10, 10:41
Please don't paint all LEO with the same brush as this idiot, (the officer involved). I would say the vast majority of us in uniform would respond the same way as the officers did in Templars situation.
One thing that does upset me though is when I come into contact with a subject and I find a weapon and they "forget" that they have a CCW, acting instead as though I should have known. PISSes me off to no end.
I do teach new officers to respect a CCW when they are in the FTO program with me. No, alot of CCWs don't have tactical training, but it is another weapon and set of eyes we in LE can use to our advantage. We just need to be careful in how an individual with a CCW is utilized because we assume the liability if things go south and the CCW is injured or worse.
Would I want the officer in the OP to be backing me up? Doesn't sound like it. In fact, if all statements are correct, I would probably be filling out the paperwork to have her dismissed from the force prior to the end of her probationary period. It sounds to me that she not only violated department regs, but risked anothers life in the process. I am only assuming here as I don't have all the particulars, just reading between the lines, but the Training staff of LVMP need to keep an eye on this one.
I grab my Beretta 92F and a couple spare mags and get over there as fast as I can. The county police had just gotten on the scene as I pulled up and as I identified myself, one of them asked "You got a gun?" I responded that I did. The same officer said "Follow me!"
Ah, Chesterfield County of 20 years ago. The good old days.
No damages to sue for, but it was not the proper actions for the LEO to take IMHO.
Business_Casual
01-14-10, 10:47
I have no idea, so I'm asking - is it a good idea to leave a handcuffed person unattended? I'd never put a dog in a crate wearing a leash, for instance. I realize that is a rather inartful comparison but...
M_P
One thing that does upset me though is when I come into contact with a subject and I find a weapon and they "forget" that they have a CCW, acting instead as though I should have known. PISSes me off to no end.
I realize that both resources and notification requirements differ, but at least where I live, there is no requirement to notify LE and they can see that I have a permit if, and as soon as, they run my DL. There are legitimate differences in opinion on how to approach this as the person who is CCW, but in general I don't volunteer information. If the officer wants to know, he can ask (and I have had one do so on a traffic stop).
I do teach new officers to respect a CCW when they are in the FTO program with me.
I'm glad that you have this mindset and that you try to instill it in trainees. The problem is that many of your colleagues do not share your view, and I have no way of knowing at the moment whether I'm dealing with an officer like you, or with one who will overreact and endanger me due to lack of training or just a poor attitude toward non-cops with guns. The law (where I live) says I don't have to say anything, and so I don't. If the cop wants to make it an issue, he can bring it up.
I have no idea, so I'm asking - is it a good idea to leave a handcuffed person unattended? I'd never put a dog in a crate wearing a leash, for instance. I realize that is a rather unartful comparison but...
M_P
Not sure if that was the case, it said she was waiting on backup before clearing... I would say to handcuff someone and leave them alone would not be a good thing to do and could have created a lot of liability if things had gone bad and he was injured by the purp...
tracker722
01-14-10, 11:05
Point taken DBrowne.
But one thing to keep in mind, if you are not going to inform the officer you are packing, don't make it obvious. I hate surprises and I may not have run your DL before I have spotted your weapon. This has happened and I have screwed my .45 into many an ear only to learn they had a CCW.
Keep your weapon secure, not on the front seat next to you or in the glove box where you keep your registration and insurance. If it is visibly secured, (belt or under dash-type system), you may want to go ahead and inform the officer of your status.
Same rules apply to off-duty officers, especially out of their jurisdictions. I have had several prayer sessions with officers who have been yanked out of their vehicles by unsuspecting officers prior to our officer informing them that they were LEO. NOT SMART.
Bottom line...use common sense and have awareness of the situation.
I have no idea, so I'm asking - is it a good idea to leave a handcuffed person unattended? I'd never put a dog in a crate wearing a leash, for instance. I realize that is a rather inartful comparison but...
M_P
Once I cuff you, I am personally responsible for your safety and well-being. I have to account for anything that happens to you from that point to when I turn you over to the jail. Same with putting you in my cruiser. Armchair quarterbacking the officer in question is bad policy; I'll freely admit that there may have been a better way of doing things, but there are many worse ways as well. Let's view this as an educational and training opportunity.
I have a question for those of you who are officers.
In a situation like this are we forced to comply with a request like that from the officer even though there is no arrest being made, etc. In other words if she had told him to turn over his firearm and he told her no, would he have broken any laws?
But one thing to keep in mind, if you are not going to inform the officer you are packing, don't make it obvious. I hate surprises and I may not have run your DL before I have spotted your weapon. This has happened and I have screwed my .45 into many an ear only to learn they had a CCW.
Keep your weapon secure, not on the front seat next to you or in the glove box where you keep your registration and insurance. If it is visibly secured, (belt or under dash-type system), you may want to go ahead and inform the officer of your status.
Same rules apply to off-duty officers, especially out of their jurisdictions. I have had several prayer sessions with officers who have been yanked out of their vehicles by unsuspecting officers prior to our officer informing them that they were LEO. NOT SMART.
Bottom line...use common sense and have awareness of the situation.
I agree with you 100% on this being situational, and for those very reasons, keep my registration somewhere that there will never be a gun. I'm very aware of how an officer is likely to react if he finds out about a gun by surprise. If I think he's going to see it, feel it, or otherwise detect it, I'll give him the heads up. Until then, though, I'd just rather not make it an issue.
First, every state has different laws, so you need to bear that in mind when reading different answers.
Second, IN OHIO, officers have the authority to disarm citizens during official business (usually traffic stops). I'm not saying it's a good or bad idea, and I'm not saying that all (or even most) of us do it, but it can legally be done at the discretion of the officer.
tracker722
01-14-10, 11:31
Man...talk about hunting a baited field.:D
I will say this. Depends on the situation. There are so many variables and possibilities that I don't even know how to give you an answer.:confused:
Submariner
01-14-10, 11:32
Armchair quarterbacking the officer in question is bad policy; I'll freely admit that there may have been a better way of doing things, but there are many worse ways as well. Let's view this as an educational and training opportunity.
Do you disagree with the concept of a civilian police review board such as is available in Las Vegas? Would this constitute "armchair quarterbacking" in your view? Is that not a reasonable venue to determine if "education and training" are necessary?
I've noticed that women are on "average" not as sympathetic to civilian gun carry as men are. Pretty much all officers have a tolerance violation that we are more lax with dishing out fines to, and we have pet peeves that we never let go. Women officers on "average" tend to have firearms possession as their pet peeve.
I'm not being sexist or anything.......hell my wife is a cop too. Just an observation I've had over the years.
decodeddiesel
01-14-10, 11:38
It's unlikely that a lawsuit would get anywhere. The courts would probably view an officer treating an armed individual with caution as a legitimate officer safety concern.
I think the unlawful incarceration of Mr. Mitchener by restraining him with handcuffs and placing him in the cruiser against his will would be the lawsuit worthy actions in this case.
Do you disagree with the concept of a civilian police review board such as is available in Las Vegas? Would this constitute "armchair quarterbacking" in your view? Is that not a reasonable venue to determine if "education and training" are necessary?
My point was not directed at a police review board in any way. While I'm not familiar with that particular board, the concept is not new, and has been exercised in many cities and states.
I am personally not willing to criticize that officer's actions, as I wasn't there, and I didn't deal with the subject. I think that anyone who is not a) on the review board, b) in the officer's chain of command, or c) present at the scene, should keep in mind that he/she likely does not have the whole story (and perhaps not even then). "Armchair quarterbacking", to me, refers to "Well, I would (or wouldn't) have done this", not a review by qualified and informed professionals.
I think the unlawful incarceration of Mr. Mitchener by restraining him with handcuffs and placing him in the cruiser against his will would be the lawsuit worthy actions in this case.
That would be my guess as well.
The officer's conduct was not unlawful, not outside of most policies on this type of thing, and successful litigation is highly unlikely.
There was a much better way to handle it. This is a training and supervision issue. Perhaps even a personal one for the officer, too.
Raising RKBA arguments at the road side is probably the best way to bring a halt to effective communication with the officer. Make argument in court, with IA, with the Chief, or with the media. If you've found ourself in an opposing view on guns with the cop, chances are he will give your argument the same reception as those he hears from a stoner preaching about the legalization of marijuana.
I don't disclose my armed status unless there's a seriously compelling reason to do so, or detection is imminent. Some may find it better to disclose, depending on their competency and preparation in CCW.
Unfortunate event for officer and citizen, but an educational one.
I've noticed that women are on "average" not as sympathetic to civilian gun carry as men are. Pretty much all officers have a tolerance violation that we are more lax with dishing out fines to, and we have pet peeves that we never let go. Women officers on "average" tend to have firearms possession as their pet peeve.
I'm not being sexist or anything.......hell my wife is a cop too. Just an observation I've had over the years.
You know, before I went to the academy, I only had one run-in with a police officer while I was carrying (a traffic accident); she was remarkably cool about it when I informed her. I think her exact words were something like "Well, don't f**k with it, and I won't care". Obviously, this is a sample size of 1; I'm just fortunate that I had such a good experience.
John_Wayne777
01-14-10, 11:46
First, every state has different laws, so you need to bear that in mind when reading different answers.
Second, IN OHIO, officers have the authority to disarm citizens during official business (usually traffic stops). I'm not saying it's a good or bad idea, and I'm not saying that all (or even most) of us do it, but it can legally be done at the discretion of the officer.
I think in most jurisdictions the idea of officer safety can be stretched to cover disarms.
Q: Is a person with a gun a potential concern to the officer?
A: Yes
Objection: But the person with a gun is a good guy!
Response: How does the officer know that for sure?
My SOP when dealing with the police is to hand them my permit on top of my DL. Reactions have ranged from seeming to take no notice to the other extreme of asking where I have the weapon. I know of a couple of instances where an officer has disarmed the individual, but those are the exception rather than the rule in my observation. Generally everybody is better off if everybody's gun stays in the holster. That way nobody gets hurt.
If an officer does decide to disarm me, I'll cooperate. I won't like it...but I will be polite and professional and I will cooperate. It's a short trip from dude with a gun to uncooperative dude with a gun to potential threat (especially if the officer is panicky about the presence of a firearm in the first place) and that's trouble I don't want or need.
Further, it's a bad idea to try and argue with the officer on the side of the road. If you are polite, professional, and cooperative the officer is going to be much more willing to listen and much less likely to really hassle you much. Yes, you may have to put up with something annoying, but I can deal with being annoyed and hopefully demonstrate to the officer that their fears were completely unfounded. Hopefully that helps inform the way they interact with the next guy.
John_Wayne777
01-14-10, 11:55
I think the unlawful incarceration of Mr. Mitchener by restraining him with handcuffs and placing him in the cruiser against his will would be the lawsuit worthy actions in this case.
I sincerely doubt it.
Like it or not, when an officer responds to a call for service they are in charge of the ground they are standing on. While the officer's judgment and actions seen here certainly weren't M4C approved, a court would most likely find that she was taking reasonable precautions to ensure her safety.
Ah, Chesterfield County of 20 years ago. The good old days.
Yep, good 'ol Chesterfield. It's changed in a lot of ways, but as far as our local LE, they're good to go. :cool:
Last year I got rear ended by a woman without a license, who was basically passing out at the wheel. One of the responding officers asked for ID and I gave my CCL to him along with my DL. He just asked if I had a weapon on me and I responded that I did. He thanked me for being upfront and went about the business of dealing with the passed out woman who hit me.
dookie1481
01-14-10, 12:01
Why pay lawyers?:D
There is an alternative: Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Citizen Review Board. (http://www.citizenreviewboard.com/)
My dad was on that review board for a few years. From what he says it seemed like a way to let the peasants feel like they had some impact on the system.
Jay
John_Wayne777
01-14-10, 12:06
My dad was on that review board for a few years. From what he says it seemed like a way to let the peasants feel like they had some impact on the system.
Jay
CRB's can be a good thing or a dumb thing, depending on who is on them and what their goal is. In some areas they are little more than an echo chamber where "community activists" (closely related to community organizers) can bitch and moan because the police shot somebody who was the wrong color. In some areas I'm sure that CRB's do a decent job.
If you are polite, professional, and cooperative the officer is going to be much more willing to listen....
Funny how that works in everyday life too, huh? The art of persuasion only works if the person chooses your idea while thinking it's their own. The reason I point that out is, arguing will never help your position.
Patrick Aherne
01-14-10, 12:55
You guys need to get off the disarming thing. If this account is true, and if the officer handcuffed the business owner and left him in the building while she took the Glock to the car, she should be in a world of sh!t: like fired or probation extended, or placed back in the FTO program. Once you put somebody in the bracelets, you are responsible for them.
As to the disarming, I've pointed guns at and placed handcuffs on folks who were victims and RPs until I knew who was who in the zoo. After we figure out everyone's status, you dust them off, apologize and explain why we do things the way we do. Most folks understand.
If the officer KNEW the subject was the victim and reporting party and still did this, I would have a talk with her if I was her sergeant.
But, from this story, we will never know if he was a loud obnoxious adam henry, had been drinking, etc. because we weren't there.
The telling sentence is the one about the more experienced cop making excuses for the less experienced officer. I hope this wasn't what happened.
How does disarming a law-abiding citizen NOT violate the 2nd Amendment? What state law or LE training overrides the right to "keep and bear arms"?
How does hand cuffing and searching a law abiding citizen NOT violate the 4th Amendment?
How is denying someone their Constitutional rights NOT lawsuit worthy?
How does the LE judgment of this man and her "decision" to confiscate his weapon NOT violate the 6th Amendment?
Sorry, but LE paranoia does not justify the actions. Law abiding citizen's should not be required to relinquish their liberties based on one person's assumptions. That is not their job or privilege to make such a monumental decision, temporary or not.
You guys need to get off the disarming thing. If this account is true, and if the officer handcuffed the business owner and left him in the building while she took the Glock to the car, she should be in a world of sh!t: like fired or probation extended, or placed back in the FTO program. Once you put somebody in the bracelets, you are responsible for them.
As to the disarming, I've pointed guns at and placed handcuffs on folks who were victims and RPs until I knew who was who in the zoo. After we figure out everyone's status, you dust them off, apologize and explain why we do things the way we do. Most folks understand.
If the officer KNEW the subject was the victim and reporting party and still did this, I would have a talk with her if I was her sergeant.
But, from this story, we will never know if he was a loud obnoxious adam henry, had been drinking, etc. because we weren't there.
The telling sentence is the one about the more experienced cop making excuses for the less experienced officer. I hope this wasn't what happened.I would totally agree with your approach of a similar situation and have no problem surrendering my firearm, if I was an unknown. I can totally understand that situation. But she apparently did know he was a legal citizen and still chose to confiscate his weapon. Even dumber to leave him unattended IN the building. I didn't catch that part in the first read. Wow! :rolleyes:
REdTula,
Police officers are in the business of taking rights from people as necessary to ensure the safety of the citizenry. This is why it's so important to hire officers with good discretionary capabilities, and make sure that we're dealing with the right people. When I pull you over for speeding, I just took your 4th Amendment right...you're not free to leave until the traffic stop's over. When I come to your house on a domestic violence call, I don't want to see anyone holding a gun. So much for your 2nd Amendment rights. What I think you're missing is that the officers are expected to a) use their authority responsibly, and b) exercise discretion. This is the balance between freedom and safety; you can't have all of one and any of the other. If police officers got sued every time they suspended someone's rights, we wouldn't have law enforcement at all.
Submariner
01-14-10, 13:31
If the officer KNEW the subject was the victim and reporting party and still did this, I would have a talk with her if I was her sergeant.
But, from this story, we will never know if he was a loud obnoxious adam henry, had been drinking, etc. because we weren't there.
You are correct. We weren't there. We do know this:
I contacted Metro about this incident Tuesday. Late Friday, a spokesman confirmed Mr. Mitchener's account as "generally accurate," stating the officer "acted in a way that was in the interest of her safety."
Do you think someone might have done some investigating between the asst. editor's call Tuesday and the statement by the LVPD spokesman on Friday? Not much wiggle room there for the Department in this statement. If he were a "a loud obnoxious adam henry, had been drinking, etc." this certainly would have been a venue for mitigating the officer's conduct.
They didn't.
My dad was on that review board for a few years. From what he says it seemed like a way to let the peasants feel like they had some impact on the system.
Jay
Was "peasants" his word or yours?
Ought not the taxpayers be able to have some impact on the system rather than trusting the civil servants to police themselves?
REdTula,
Police officers are in the business of taking rights from people as necessary to ensure the safety of the citizenry. This is why it's so important to hire officers with good discretionary capabilities, and make sure that we're dealing with the right people. When I pull you over for speeding, I just took your 4th Amendment right...you're not free to leave until the traffic stop's over. When I come to your house on a domestic violence call, I don't want to see anyone holding a gun. So much for your 2nd Amendment rights. What I think you're missing is that the officers are expected to a) use their authority responsibly, and b) exercise discretion. This is the balance between freedom and safety; you can't have all of one and any of the other. If police officers got sued every time they suspended someone's rights, we wouldn't have law enforcement at all.While I agree with your assertion that cops should not be subjected to undue lawsuits, I disagree with your interpretation of the traffic stop scenario and how it pertains to the 4th Amd.
A traffic stop does not allow a LE to legally search at will unless there is probable cause, which would be inline with the 4th Amd. But without probably cause or a warrant, the LE is legally at the mercy of the citizen in question as to whether he/she is legally allowed to search the vehicle. Yes, you can hold someone at the scene but only under certain circumstances and only for so long.
As far as the domestic dispute call, I would think that probable cause was established when the call was made to 911. In this case, I would not object to disarming a home owner as the evidence of potential violence has also been established.
I have the greatest respect for LEO's that can successfully walk that fine line. But I also worry about the slippery slope that we seem to be headed down that says a LE's perceived safety is greater than our Constitutional rights as free American's. We, as a society, need to be very careful that we do not give up our freedoms for the sake of "security".
Is this why cops need their own private forums? :confused:
- Stepping over the line, one post at a time.
dookie1481
01-14-10, 14:58
Was "peasants" his word or yours?
Ought not the taxpayers be able to have some impact on the system rather than trusting the civil servants to police themselves?
Mine. I think his implication was that it was a dog and pony show put on to make the community feel good but it didn't seem to have much of an impact.
That being said, LVMPD is full of good people and I think this was an aberration.
Jay
While I agree with your assertion that cops should not be subjected to undue lawsuits, I disagree with your interpretation of the traffic stop scenario and how it pertains to the 4th Amd.
A traffic stop does not allow a LE to legally search at will unless there is probable cause, which would be inline with the 4th Amd. But without probably cause or a warrant, the LE is legally at the mercy of the citizen in question as to whether he/she is legally allowed to search the vehicle. Yes, you can hold someone at the scene but only under certain circumstances and only for so long.
As far as the domestic dispute call, I would think that probable cause was established when the call was made to 911. In this case, I would not object to disarming a home owner as the evidence of potential violence has also been established.
I have the greatest respect for LEO's that can successfully walk that fine line. But I also worry about the slippery slope that we seem to be headed down that says a LE's perceived safety is greater than our Constitutional rights as free American's. We, as a society, need to be very careful that we do not give up our freedoms for the sake of "security".
Just to be perfectly clear, I was in no way saying that LEOs are more important than our Constitutional rights. Just that we have different opinions of the social contract by which we're living.
There have been several instances where Police Officer's have almost been shot by armed homeowners or business owners when the Officer responds to an alarm or other calls for service. The majority of the time, I ask them to put it away when I arrive, depending on the circumstance. While she may have been a little over precautious, she went home safely at the end of her shift.
QuietShootr
01-14-10, 16:01
Leaving the victim handcuffed and helpless may have made Officer Rogers feel safer when she locked his Glock 19 in her cruiser while awaiting back up to clear the building; however, it put his life in jeopardy. If the burglar had still been around, the officer may have been able to fend for herself, but the productive citizen would have been a helpless target.
I have not scrolled down past Submariner's post. I'm going to make a prediction.
3 guys saying this is bullshit
3 cops saying 'it's just policy, and it's for your safety too'
3 more guys pointing out the hypocritical attitude
1 mod coming in and telling everyone not to say anything nasty about the cops even when they **** up
2 more cops saying something about 'at least he went home safe that night'
2 account locks and a thread lock.
Submariner
01-14-10, 16:01
2 more cops saying something about 'at least she went home safe that night'
Fixed it for ya.:D
Mine. I think his implication was that it was a dog and pony show put on to make the community feel good but it didn't seem to have much of an impact.
That being said, LVMPD is full of good people and I think this was an aberration.
Jay
An "aberration" such as this, in an equal opportunity and PC world, can work its way up the chain of command despite there being "good people" in the Department. It is the Peter Principle in action.
This problem is not self-correcting absent leadership from inside (better) or outside (worse.)
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-14-10, 17:04
The only person that gets to put handcuffs on me is my wife, on my birthday, after the kids have gone to bed.
I can understand the disarm- I don't like it, not so much the cuffing. From the article, this was not an alarmed response, the guy called the cops. Why didn't she ask for ID and confirm that he was the person that reported the break-in??
I don't break the law, and for that no one is going to put me in cuffs while I'm conscious.
The only person that gets to put handcuffs on me is my wife, on my birthday, after the kids have gone to bed.
I can understand the disarm- I don't like it, not so much the cuffing. From the article, this was not an alarmed response, the guy called the cops. Why didn't she ask for ID and confirm that he was the person that reported the break-in??
I don't break the law, and for that no one is going to put me in cuffs while I'm conscious.
I understand that you're trying to make a point, but you do realize that if you're ever involved in a self-defense shooting, not only will you be wearing cuffs, but you'll be in a jail cell for at least a little while...right?
I understand that you're trying to make a point, but you do realize that if you're ever involved in a self-defense shooting, not only will you be wearing cuffs, but you'll be in a jail cell for at least a little while...right?
In your experience, that would be the case every time?
In your experience, that would be the case every time?
I can't speak for every police officer in the country, or every set of circumstances...but I carry a badge, and if I have to shoot someone (off duty), I expect to end up in cuffs. It's easy to get a badge, easy to lie about who you are or who you work for; I expect the officers who show up on scene to be smart enough to figure the whole story before they let me walk. And that's not a 5 minute figuring. The questioning probably won't take place in front of Walmart, it'll be in an interrogation room, after I've been Mirandized.
This is free advice, and is worth exactly what you paid for it, but I wouldn't say anything to anybody beyond "I'd like to speak with my attorney now".
"And you will know them by their fruit" Mathew 7:16
I can't speak for every police officer in the country, or every set of circumstances...but I carry a badge, and if I have to shoot someone (off duty), I expect to end up in cuffs.
You do realize that there are many, many incidents involving off duty officers, non-LEO homeowners, etc. in which that person is involved in a good shoot and does not end up in cuffs, being arrested, or being charged ... right?
Doesn't mean they won't have some 'splaining to do, but they're not getting cuffed just because.
I can't speak for every police officer in the country, or every set of circumstances...but I carry a badge, and if I have to shoot someone (off duty), I expect to end up in cuffs. It's easy to get a badge, easy to lie about who you are or who you work for; I expect the officers who show up on scene to be smart enough to figure the whole story before they let me walk. And that's not a 5 minute figuring. The questioning probably won't take place in front of Walmart, it'll be in an interrogation room, after I've been Mirandized.
This is free advice, and is worth exactly what you paid for it, but I wouldn't say anything to anybody beyond "I'd like to speak with my attorney now".
Thanks.
I suffered the same thing from Nevada Highway Patrol after I was involved in a car accident where I was rear-ended in May of last year. I was removed from my vehicle by a panicked officer after I politely informed him of my permit and firearm and placed in the search/handcuff position in front of the woman who rear-ended me and who was already being confrontational. I was given contradicting instructions from the 2 officers present, and this resulted in my iPhone, which I had used to call the police and then my insurance company and was in my lap, getting dumped into the street because the officers would not allow me to place it on the seat next to me. My firearm was removed and disassembled on my hood and the officer lost the barrel, then replaced the remaining parts in my trunk. He then found the barrel and gave it to me to put in my pocket. I was not handcuffed but I was thoroughly embarrassed. The 2nd officer apologized and gave me the "its for our safety" speech. After the accident report was filed and the officers left I was allowed to reassemble my gun.
I've noticed that women are on "average" not as sympathetic to civilian gun carry as men are. Pretty much all officers have a tolerance violation that we are more lax with dishing out fines to, and we have pet peeves that we never let go. Women officers on "average" tend to have firearms possession as their pet peeve.
I was pulled over for speeding a couple years ago by a female NHP officer. I was doing 80 in a 65. I did the same thing I did with these 2 officers, she looked at my permit and asked me which of the guns on it I was carrying. I told her the Glock 19, she asked where it was, I said "on my hip" she said, "cool, don't touch it" and went back to her car. Came back to me about 5 minutes later with a warning for the speeding. I said thanks, she said have a nice day, and I went on my way.
John Hearne
01-15-10, 00:01
FWIW, I think that the responding officer has some discretion whether they disarm the person in their scene. The issue I have is the handcuffing and placing the rear of the cruiser. I don't see any way that can be justified. The citizen was seized, and practically speaking, arrested, without probable cause.
I've only been doing this for eighteen years, but assume that everyone is armed and don't get worried about the ones who tell me they're armed.
FWIW, I think that the responding officer has some discretion whether they disarm the person in their scene. The issue I have is the handcuffing and placing the rear of the cruiser. I don't see any way that can be justified. The citizen was seized, and practically speaking, arrested, without probable cause.
have to agree that applying handcuffs over stepped the lines and went beyond what should have been instituted to make the officer feel safe. Hopefully this was a rookie mistake and will become a learning experience. If she has several years under her belt and still acts this way, then someone in the department is dropping the ball (no pun intended). If this situation went down as described, with no other factors involved, i would be mad as hell, at being robbed, disarmed, then put in cuffs.
It's simple.
The lady obviously doesn't understand "Innocent until proven guilty", which is what our system is supposed to be based on.
Fire her.
The courts have given LE wiiiiiiiiiide discretion as to what they are able to do in the interest of officer safety. What most officers fail to remember is that their actions should be based upon much more than simply checking off a box or "because I can."
The "I won't be handcuffed..." and "better not happen to me..." chest-thumping is much comedy. If the officer wants you handuffed and canned in the car, you will be. If you don't like it, take your chances on the fight, or comply with instructions and take your recourse through IA, litigation, etc.
OR, to repeat an earlier recommendation of many: If you can carry with some expertise, don't call the question.
Cascades236
01-15-10, 11:29
I hope she at least gets suspended from her duties and harshly reprimanded, it is things like this that make me trust the police less and less. I wonder if any of them realize that a law-abiding citizen is way more likely to announce his CCW, or even go through the process of obtaining one instead of some baggy pants wearing hood-rat gangsta with his "fol-five" shoved inches away from his nuts. :rolleyes:
I still support LE as much as anyone else here, but how do we maintain trust if there are officers that believe only they rate to have a firearm???
She was overzealous but the last few months haven't been kind to us. Where's her side of the story? None of us were there. Id be really interested to know uf the rp told 911 hed be waiting outsude, what he was wearing and that he was armed. Bad guys lie to us day in and day out believe it or not and when the burglar crawling out your window claims to be the home owner I'm not letting him walk until its been verified. Long story shirt..detain him, verifon id and move on.
How do you trust em? This officer represents the rest of us like the sniper in the Texas tower represents the corps...they don't.
The law (where I live) says I don't have to say anything, and so I don't. If the cop wants to make it an issue, he can bring it up.
what do you say if asked? i generally get asked, if i don't bring it up.
Cascades236
01-15-10, 11:43
I think the unlawful incarceration of Mr. Mitchener by restraining him with handcuffs and placing him in the cruiser against his will would be the lawsuit worthy actions in this case.
Being detained is not incarceration
My advice to anyone regardless of your state/local laws governing your admittance to carrying a concealed weapon is to always tell the officer that you have a weapon if you're spending any amount of time around the LEO. If SHTF at your current location I wouldn't want the LEO having to make a split second decision as to whether or not I'm a good guy or a bad guy. I would like him/her to know that I'm the legal citizen and not a threat.
Being detained is not incarceration
Detained is bullshit cop speak for you're arrested but we don't want to use that word. Read the definition, it's pretty plain and simple.
Cascades236
01-15-10, 11:55
Detained is bullshit cop speak for you're arrested but we don't want to use that word. Read the definition, it's pretty plain and simple.
I need probable cause to arrest you
I only need reasonable suspision to detain you.
Terry v ohio, read up
I need probable cause to arrest you
I only need reasonable suspision to detain you.
Terry v ohio, read up
Read up I have, I suggest you do the same.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ARREST
Main Entry: 1ar·rest
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈrest\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English aresten, from Anglo-French arester to stop, arrest, from Vulgar Latin *arrestare, from Latin ad- + restare to remain — more at rest
Date: 14th century
1 a : to bring to a stop b : check, slow c : to make inactive <an arrested tumor>
2 : seize, capture; specifically : to take or keep in custody by authority of law
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/arrest
A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in response to a criminal charge.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arrest
ar·rest (-rst)
v. ar·rest·ed, ar·rest·ing, ar·rests
v.tr.
1. To stop; check: a brake that automatically arrests motion; arrested the growth of the tumor.
2. To seize and hold under the authority of law.
3. To capture and hold briefly (the attention, for example); engage.
v.intr.
1.
a. The act of detaining in legal custody: the arrest of a criminal suspect.
b. The state of being so detained: a criminal under arrest.
2. A device for stopping motion, especially of a moving part.
3. The act of stopping or the condition of being stopped.
Detained is bullshit cop speak for you're arrested but we don't want to use that word. Read the definition, it's pretty plain and simple.
I need probable cause to arrest you
I only need reasonable suspision to detain you.
Terry v ohio, read up
i think thats the point.. "detain" is how you get arrested without being "arrested."
whereas if you look at the legal definitions of "arrest" in many states, there's absolutely no difference between an arrest and a detention, except that an arrest is usually followed up with formal charges.
i think thats the point.. "detain" is how you get arrested without being "arrested."
whereas if you look at the legal definitions of "arrest" in many states, there's absolutely no difference between an arrest and a detention, except that an arrest is usually followed up with formal charges.
I agree and I'm not saying there isn't a legitimate reason to have someone handcuffed but they are under arrest by definition. An LEO refrains from using that terminology so they don't have to fill out paperwork. An example would be:
Why am I under arrest? (As cuffs are being administered).
You're not, you're simply being detained.
Then why am I in handcuffs?
For your protection and ours. (Because you're under arrest).
Cascades236
01-15-10, 12:13
Regardless of what dictionary.com says we lawfully detain people daily without arresting them. As pointed our earlier, when you get stopped for speeding you are detained. You are not free to go but you are not necessarily under arrest. This is supported by case law and not dictionary semantics.
Terry v Ohio lays out detentions in the eyes of the courts
This is supported by case law and not dictionary semantics.
The definition of a word is not dictionary semantics, dictionaries define the english language, it's meaning and how it's used. I have as much faith in that case law as I do the cases concerning the 2nd Amendment. Due to the fact that the state defends the state and it supports your position on one topic does not make it right.
Have a good day.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.