Concealed carry Driver

Police are just people; if you treat them with respect (and don't take it personally when they pull over for speeding) they will return your respect. 

So that's why I have never disrespected police for giving me speeding tickets .. which I quit doing!

I've talked before about carrying a weapon and being stopped by police for a traffic offense.   I'm going to repeat it because of the following published story from a policeman:

Purse Carry, CCW, and Police Interactions | Active Response Training: I do what I can to avoid treating CCW carriers with paranoia.  I work hard to ensure that should I stop a CCW licensee, the encounter goes positively for both of us.  After all, if the person I’m stopping has gone to the trouble of getting a CCW license, I know he doesn’t have a serious criminal record.   If the CCW carrier informs me that he or she is carrying, I know that the person is trying to obey our state’s LE notification law and probably isn’t trying to kill me.

After I was stopped (this wasn't the incident reported above), the police car sat behind me with red-lights flashing for two or three minutes while I fished out my drivers license Concealed Handgun License, and other identification cards ... plus my insurance form.   I did this because I knew the cop had called in the license plate, identified me as the owner, and ran a check on my name.   He knew I was (probably) carrying a gun and exercised proper diligence when he left the car and approached me.

When the cop finally got out ot the car, he had one hand on his pistol and the other hand held a flashlight.  I had already killed the engine and turned on the interior lights (it was a night-time stop) so he could see clearly that I had both hands on the steering wheel, I was holding my papers in my left hand, the window was rolled all the way down ... and I had not opened my door.

When he asked for license and insurance, I simply gave them to him while my right hand remained on the steering wheel.  I kept my face toward him, and wore a chagrined grin.   (Well, I WAS speeding .. I was going to the drug store to get a refill of pain medication for my Significant Other.)

I explained why I was hurrying, admitted that I exercised poor judgement, and asked him to please just write the ticket and let me go before the pharmacy closed.

Perhaps I wasn't as calm as I should have been, but he recognized the situation as I explained it to him and returned my papers with a simple caution to obey the speed limit; it's better to be slow returning home than to not return due to an accident.   Or something like that.

Abuse of Authority:

I know that there are "Bad Cops"; my distant cousin was married to one.  I never liked him, and after a few years he lost his job.  Not because of anything I said or did ... I was only 12 at the time.

My cousin divorced him, too, which was A Good Thing; I liked my cousin, but she wasn't the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.

 One nice thing about shooting matches, folks just naturally assume that if you're carrying a gun at a shooting match, you're probably not a convicted felon.  Or a druggie. 

In Spain; criminals do not fear their victims can defend themselves

It was the opening day of the traditional Spanish "Running of the Bulls", when a woman was raped by 5 men in a downtown doorway.

The men were arrested and charged with a "lesser offense" than Rape, because ... SPAIN.

Thousands protest for third day in Pamplona over 'wolf pack' gang rape case:

Tens of thousands of Spaniards took to the streets of Pamplona on Saturday to protest against the acquittal of five men accused of gang raping an 18-year-old woman at the city’s bull-running festival. Demonstrators have filled streets across the country since the court ruling on Thursday, leading Spain’s conservative government to say it will consider changing rape laws. The men were acquitted of sexual assault, which includes rape, and sentenced to nine years for the lesser offence of sexual abuse.

*emphasis added*

I'm not sure what 'sexual abuse" is, but I'm pretty sure the "RAPE" includes a "one women, five men", public assault ...

The men, aged 27 to 29, had been accused of raping the woman at the entrance to an apartment building in Pamplona on July 7, 2016, at the start of the week-long San Fermin festival, which draws tens of thousands of visitors.

The five, all from the southern city of Seville, filmed the incident with their smartphones and then bragged about it on a WhatsApp messaging group where they referred to themselves as "La Manada", or "The Pack" in English. 

In Spain ... ordinary citizens are not allowed to carry firearms for self defense.

When a lone, defenseless woman suffers a sexual attack on the street, and is disallowed by her government to defend herself by force of arms, she is at the mercy of a merciless pack of jackals,

A government which cannot defend its citizens, and will not allow them to defend themselves, is not a government; it is a failed patriarchy.

REMEMBER:  When seconds count, the police are ...  just minutes away  no help at all .   collecting evidence   blaming you for being a victim ...

You're on your own!

[H/T: 357 magnum}

The gun delusion

The Concord Monitor has offers an interesting opinion piece from Debra Marshall, who cautions us that:

"I’m not safe, and you’re not safe, if either of us is armed; and you’re deluding yourself if you think you’re well-trained in firearms."

Debra Marshall: The gun delusion:

A weapon [emphasis added] has just one purpose – to kill another human being. We all need to assume, very seriously, that anyone who possesses a weapon has every intention of pointing it at another human and attempting to kill them. Not maybe, not only if they have to – but absolutely. And that any person who carries their weapon around with them intends to do so at any moment, without warning. We would be fools to think otherwise, and fools to think that we won’t be their target.

AND ...

Specialized training doesn’t consist of taking pot-shots at a human-outline target in an indoor target shooting range. I don’t care what the range instructor told you – he lied. If you aren’t a member of a police force, military unit or related government agency with specialized weapons training, you have NOT received the training you need to be armed with a weapon and for me to be safe anywhere near you.

I agree with some of her arguments ... and disagree with others .... in whole or in part.

Which isn't really important.  It's still a fascinating screed, written by someone with experience and judgement.   That she evinces an inordinate amount of faith in the skills and training of Law Enforcement personnel only demonstrates that she believes a regular regimen of training is better than none at all.

Some people really SHOULD NOT be trusted with guns.

Most of them already know that.

But some of those who do not know that, are employed by municipal police departments.

"... Get that gun from those who shouldn't have it"

Why do police need a CHL to justify carrying concealed carry?

If they find someone "who shouldn't have" (a firearm), don't they have means to determine whether that person "shouldn't have" it?   If it was legal to carry a concealed firearm without a license, couldn't the police do a background check in the field.

It seems that the police facing this policy change are upset because it means they will do more work to check whether that person would qualify for a CHL, if it was required.     (And that would be a valid reason to oppose the CHL movement .... if it had been cited!)

Police flood Alabama Capitol, ask lawmakers to keep concealed carry permit requirement | WBMA:

 A debate at the Alabama State House centers on this question: Should people be required to have a concealed carry permit in order to carry concealed firearms? Law enforcement from across the state filled the House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee meeting in Montgomery Wednesday. Most were there in opposition to Senate Bill 24. 

(The bill would make it legal to carry a concealed firearms without the requirement of buying a CHL: a"Concealed Handgun License")

"I think it's a vote against the safety of our citizens," Mountain Brook Police Chief Ted Cook told the committee.  Cook spoke on behalf of the Police Chief's Association, where he serves as vice president."We can't measure the lives we've saved using this law to get in there and get that gun from those who shouldn't have it," Cook said.

The benefit of a CHL is that the carrier has already been vetted to carry.   That means the person is not a felon, not wanted, not insane, not an 'alien' and is of legal age.

Chief Cook is obviously worried about using his officers to check backgrounds of people found with a firearm.   His statement makes it sound as if there is no other way to vet these folks.   

(Perhaps he should encourage this measure.)

It's easy to sympathize with Chief Cook; he doesn't want his officers to spend 10 minutes (or hours!) running a background check on a citizen when they find a concealed weapon.  Unfortunately, the Constitution acknowledges the right of citizens to "... keep and bear arms ..." 

If he had simply stated: "It will impose an intolerable burden on my officers to require them to run a background check in the field on everyone we found with a concealed firearm",  that would be understandable.  Instead, he implied that the lack of a CHL would make it virtually impossible to determine if the person in question is one of "... those who shouldn't have it".  That's disingenuous, and misleading.

(Disclaimer:
I actually agree with Chief Cook.   It would be civil to require a CHL to carry concealed. I just don't like the manner in which he stated his case.)

A policeman's lot is not a happy one.

"Combative" Jaywalker?

I'm not a lawyer, but this doesn't seem ISN'T right!


Black man arrested for jaywalking was beaten in jail, stripped naked and mocked, lawsuit says - The Washington Post:

(See link for video)

When Nandi Cain Jr. was seen on video getting slammed to the ground and pummeled repeatedly by a police officer, that was not the end of his ordeal, according to his attorney. A new federal lawsuit states that the 24-year-old was also placed on psychiatric hold and taken to an isolation cell of a county jail, where the officer and other employees beat him repeatedly, stripped his clothes off and made obscene comments. Cain was then left in the cell, where he spent hours without food, medical attention or a chance to make a phone call, the lawsuit says. 

The lawyer is filing a civil suit.

In their statement, Sacramento police officials said they have reviewed the video and “determined the officer’s actions appeared to be outside of policy.”

Sacramento (California) police shouldn't expect a pay raise in the foreseeable future.

Personal:  I'm generally supportive of Law Enforcement Officers.

These, though, seem to be acting more like animals that Officers of The Law.
I'm sure there's more to the story than has been presented here, but it's difficult to justify denial of rights of a prisoner, no matter what the circumstances of his arrest.

For JAYWALKING!!!!

Resisting Arrest?   Perhaps physical force might be appropriate.

Deliberate shaming? Depriving the accused of civil rights?

Not in the story, at all.

Not "officers of the law", but animals with a bloated sense of Judicial Privilege.

I'm resisting the temptation to use the word "Disgusting" until more information is made available; but based purely on initial reporting, I doubt that will happen.

It's difficult to excuse this kind of abuse of a prisoner; even one who is resisting arrest; especially when the punishment exceeds accepted treatment of a prisoner who has been incarcerated and not, apparently, offering further resistance.

Bill would end requirement to tell police you're carrying a gun | WSYX

Bill would end requirement to tell police you're carrying a gun | WSYX:

Failure to tell a police officer you have a gun is a misdemeanor. Ohio is one of only 10 states with a law like that on the books.

I have no problems with a law like that.
I DO have a problem with a poorly written article ... such as this one, which doesn't clearly define under which circumstances you need to notify an officer.

I've already written about my practices if/when I'm pulled over for a traffic offence; even knowing that the officer is aware the owner of a car has a CHL (Concealed Handgun License), I have my drivers license, my insurance card, and my CHL in my hand when he approaches the car ... and my hands are in plain sight, on the steering wheel.   He knows I'm the person he expected to see behind the wheel.

CHL owners are the last people who should concern LEOs ... but it never hurts to demonstrate to the cop who pulled you over in the middle of the night that you ARE the owner of the car, and you ARE ... at least potentially ,,, carrying a firearm.

Keep your hands in view, have your ID ready in your hand, and BE POLITE!

I don't carry because I'm afraid of police.

I don't want them to be afraid of me, either.

I'm no threat.

They were asking for it!

UPDATE: Open carry activists who walked into police dept.with AR-15 due in court - WXYZ.com: DEARBORN, Mich. (WXYZ) - 

Two open carry activists who walked into the Dearborn Police Department armed with guns, body armor and video cameras last month were due in court Friday morning for a probable cause hearing.
 Surveillance video captured the men walking into the building last month, while police are seen and heard telling them to put down their weapons. "Dude, put that on the ground. Put it on the ground... Or you are dead," an officer, with guns drawn is heard screaming.

Dude, they were lucky!

 I would have shot them on sight.
They apparently showed up "ready for action".

"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should!"

(The Dearborn Police deserve two thumbs down a medal  for their willingness to allow these IDIOTS to pollute the Gene Pool.)

click the link to see the video

UK Kops: "Blame The Law-Abiding Victims!"

Top Met Police anti-terror cop blames licensed shooters for Jo Cox MP murder | UK Shooting News:

17 Dec 2016 – The head of the Metropolitan Police’s anti-terrorist division has sought to blame the licensed firearms community for the murder of Jo Cox MP by a political extremist. 

Responding to a fiercely worded letter sent to him by NRA chief executive Andrew Mercer, Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley suggested that the licensed firearms community was to blame because they are targeted for burglaries by criminals. 

Rejecting Mercer’s description of a previous interview with the Daily Telegraph as “unhelpful”, where Rowley had claimed 800 licensed firearms were lost or stolen in 2015 without breaking down the figure, the assistant commissioner wrote: “We do see licensed firearms recovered in criminal circumstances and we do, on occasions, see licensed firearms holders acting outside their licence conditions.”  (sic)

“A recent and high profile example is the firearm discharged in the murder of Jo Cox. This was originally a licensed firearm that was stolen from a vehicle. It then ended up in the hands of Thomas Mair.”

(Mercer/Rowley information link)

Incidentally, Andrew Mercer is chief executive of NRA/UK.

Help me work through the logic here:

Basic Background for those unfamiliar with UK gun control laws:

Great Britain has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world.  The main law is from the late 1960s, but it was amended to restrict gun ownership further in the latter part of the twentieth century in response to massacres that involved lawfully licensed weapons.  Handguns are prohibited weapons and require special permission.  Firearms and shotguns require a certificate from the police for ownership, and a number of criteria must be met, including that the applicant has a good reason to possess the requested weapon. Self-defense or a simple wish to possess a weapon is not considered a good reason. The secure storage of weapons is also a factor when licenses are granted.

• England doesn't allow anyone to possess a firearm.  Except under strict license laws.
• England keeps a record of every licensed firearm owner, available (only?) to the police.
• The privately owned, licensed firearms were stolen by thieves who obviously knew who had them.
• As far as I know, there is no public record of licensees.
• The police have no leads.
• The police are looking for some way to distract public attention from their incompetence. Or malfeasance.

Did I miss anything?

In passing, I note that the lauded "Gun Control" measures imposed in "Civilized Countries" seem only to penalize honest, legal firearms owners.

Criminals can ALWAYS get a gun .. and this is exactly how it works.

That's all I have to say about this.

S,C deputy: "It Just Went Off! I don't know how it happened!"

Was this another "Blame it on the Buckle" Incident?

Upstate deputy transported to hospital after accidentally shooting self, sheriff says:

Anderson County Sheriff's Office officials said that one of their own was taken to AnMed Hospital after accidentally shooting himself in the leg. Anderson County Sheriff John Skipper said that the deputy was coming home from an extra duty assignment at NewSpring Church. As he removed his gun from its holster, it went off and the bullet struck his leg, Skipper said. Skipper said the deputy is regularly assigned to Westside High School as their resource officer.

Somebody ought to shoot his Training Officer, too, for not teaching the deputy to keep his finger off the trigger until he's ready to shoot somebody.   (Preferably, somebody else!)

Considering that the deputy is a high school "resource officer", it might be a good idea to reassign him before he shoots a kid.

Either that, or fire him

PS:  The headline line quote I added wasn't in the article, but you can bet that's what he said to shis sheriff.

Tell It To The Judge

Trump's Victory Has Fearful Minorities Buying Up Guns - NBC News:

 In one high-profile incident, the live-streamed aftermath of the shooting of Philando Castile at a traffic stop at the hands of police in Minnesota sparked country-wide outrage and was ruled manslaughter. That and another death in Louisiana sparked a protest in Dallas, which a sniper took advantage of to kill five police officers.

You don't have to be a threat to the cops.  You just have to be reasonable.

I was pulled over by a local policeman a few years ago for speeding.

He was right; my Lady was sick, needed a refill of her Cancer medicine from the Pharmacist,
I was more concerned about getting the pain-relieving drugs to her as quickly as possible than I was about driving safely.

It was dark when the policeman pulled me over, and I recognized that he may not feel safe in the encounter.   I knew that he had called my license plate in, and they had told him that I had a CHL (Concealed Handgun License).

When he pulled me over, there was a 3 minute delay while he checked up on me through the radio.

During that time I pulled out my drivers license, my insurance card, and my CHL.

When he approached my car, I had the interior lights on, my hands on the wheel, and those three documents in my hand.  He asked me for my drivers license, and I gave him all the the information he needed to know (and which he had probably already received from his station downtown).

After I gave him the three documents, we chatted for a few minutes.  I acknowledged that I was driving too fast, and explained why.  I was in the wrong, so I was not confrontational.

Hell, he had me dead to rights.

But he wasn't afraid of me.

Even though I told him that I had a pistol in the compartment between the front seats.

My hands were in plain sight on the steering wheel at all times ... again, with the interior light on.

I was no threat to him.

He let me go with only a warning.  Well, it probably helped that I hadn't had a ticket in the past 5 years, but I HAD a warning on a speeding charge 6 years earlier.  That didn't matter.

Folks ... if you're pulled over by a cop, you probably deserve it.  Even if you think you do NOT deserve it, the best thing you can do (especially if you have a CHL) is to NOT present a threat!

If you think it's a bum rap, go to court and explain it to the judge.  He probably doesn't have a gun.

(I actually had that experience 20 years ago ... explained the situation to the judge: he let me go because I manned up and because I was trying to merge with fast traffic at the off-ramp of a bridge.)

I'm not black, so I can't speak to their experience.
All I an say is ,,, well, I've already said it: man up, don't be a jerk, take the ticket if you deserve it.

If you don't deserve it, tell it to the judge.

New Jersey: "You do what I say you do!"

NJ holding police depts hostage to push 'smart guns'... - Gunmart Blog

I'm not sure that the mayor of Newark has the power to dictate to Major Firearms Manufacturers.

If the police departments in New Jersey require firearms which are "Dependable", rather than "Politically Acceptable ... aren't the police the people who are putting their lives on the line?

Shouldn't the police, who live or die by the reliability of their firearms, be the people who are defining the specifications for "acceptable weapons"?

Perhaps not:

(Newark Mayor Ras J. Baraka demands:)

Surrounded by clergy and bi-partisan groups on the steps of Newark City Hall Thursday afternoon, Baraka called on all New Jersey mayors to convene before purchasing additional weapons for their law enforcement agencies and create a list of manufacturers who are listening to their concerns, chiefly: safer gun distribution practices and technologies.
"We put our money in places, with people who support what we think is right for our community," Baraka told NJ Advance Media following the press conference. "You're talking about over 560 municipalities in the State of New Jersey. If we can get a quarter of them to say, 'Look, we agree with this, and we're not going to purchase bullets, guns or whatever from these four or five manufactures until (they) do what we ask them to do.'"

Is this guy requiring smart guns?  Or has he made under-the-counter deals with a few manufacturers just for the badda-boom?

Is it all about the money?

Is that what it's all about?  Where the mayor of Newark wants to put his money, determines what quality of firearms are distributed to the police, who need to defend their lives every day?

"You do what I say you do!

Brit: "A Policeman's Lot Is Not A Happy One!"

I Was A Cop In A Country With No Guns: 6 Startling Truths:

Over the first eight months of 2015, American police killed 776 people, while British police killed exactly one. American police are eight times as likely to kill a citizen, and ten times as likely to die on the job, as their essentially unarmed British counterparts. We wanted to get an idea of just why this was, so we spoke to Charley Clark, who spent nearly a decade as a police constable and a detective constable in Hackney, one of the most deprived and dangerous boroughs in London. Naturally, as we were writing about how much safer the UK is with its lack of guns, despite having a commensurate percentage of unstable potential criminals, this happened. But the fact that the attacker is alive to face trial is a testament to the police involved and to how long it takes Trojan, the British Police armed response teams, to arrive. The suspect was armed -- the arresting officers were not. Welcome to policing, British-style.

(Actually ... I posted this because this gentleman's story was both amusing and well written; if you have to go up against bad boys with nothing than an empty pocket and a smile, it seems to be good tactics to make the other bloke smaile as well.)


(sigh)

Officer Target

Minnesota officer reacted to gun, not race, attorney says:

The Minnesota police officer who fatally shot a black man in a Minneapolis suburb earlier this week spoke out through his attorney Saturday saying that the shooting had nothing to do with race. The officer, identified as Jeronimo Yanez, shot and killed Philando Castile Wednesday during a routine traffic stop. Castile and his fiance, Diamond “Lavish” Reynolds, were pulled over for an alleged busted taillight. Authorities told the Associated Press that Yanez approached the vehicle from the driver’s side while his partner, Officer Joseph Kauser, came around the passenger side. Yanez eventually opened fire, striking Castile multiple times.

There are a LOT of things wrong with this story, and I can't believe that either the officer or the driver had so little sense of responsibility that it had to end in the death of the driver.

Ignoring the rumors about the driver, there are ways to handle a normal traffic stop which will help prevent a tragedy.

A lot of people have stories, and questions, about being pulled over during a routine traffic stop when they are armed.  I understand their concerns.   Most people with CHL aren't really conversant with the best way to deal with police; perhaps my own experiences can provide a exemplar.

Cop Killer Jacket?

NYPD checking ammo after knife wielder’s jacket stops cops’ bullets | New York Post:
(May 19, 2016)

Four of the shots that cops fired at a madman waving a knife in Midtown failed to penetrate his jacket — which was not bulletproof — and the NYPD will now check the weapons for malfunction, law enforcement sources told The Post. “The bullets we have may be defective and that’s very disturbing,” one source said. “When we fire our weapons, we want to make damn sure that our bullets hit our target — neutralizing our target.”

That's odd, isn't it?  Maybe the NYPD should interview the 'madman' and get the name of his tailor?
That tailor could make a fortune!

Actually, Lucky Gunner ran a test last year, which they called "The Heavy Clothing Test".   They found that even light clothing might offer significant protection from pistol caliber bullets:

The heavy clothing test simulates a scenario in which the target is wearing four layers of clothing: two cotton shirts, fleece, and denim. The FBI uses this standard not because it’s common for people to actually wear that exact clothing, but because they are common clothing materials, and when combined they represent something close to a worst case scenario for a bullet.
Clothing can present a challenge for some hollow point loads because the opening in the bullet can become clogged with clothing material and fail to expand once it reaches living tissue. This failure to expand gives the bullet a lower probability of striking a vital area, and also leads to the potential for over-penetration. Expanding bullets lose velocity quickly and are more likely to stay inside the target, but a hollow point that fails to expand can maintain enough energy to exit the target and potentially harm bystanders.
We used the same type of fabric specified in the FBI heavy clothing test, which calls for the following:

1. cotton t-shirt material (approximately 5.25 ounces per yard, 48 threads per inch)

1. cotton shirt material (approximately 3.5 ounces per yard, 80 threads per inch)

1. Malden Mills Polartec 200 fleece

1. cotton denim (approximately 14.4 ounces per yard, 50 threads per inch)

The four layers of fabric were stacked together and placed against the front of the gelatin block, secured with clothes pins to a bar suspended above the test block

What they discovered surprised them:  even a 'cotton t-shirt' offered some (and in some ways significant) resistance to penetration, especially by a hollow-point bullet.    Not that any of the ammunition tested failed to penetrate, but their tests showed that penetration of the body cavity, wound channels and expansion of the bullets were all affected by the cloth which which the 'target' (ballistic gel) was 'protected'.

Which is interesting, but still doesn't answer the question of WHY the NYPD's bullets did not (according to the article) even penetrate the clothing!

The cops are blaming "the bullets", by which one assumes they're talking about the ammunition, not necessarily the bullets themselves.  And they might have something there.

How often to they fire to qualify?  How often do they replace their ammuition .. you know, the stuff they actually load in their pistols?  

It's true that ammunition deteriorates over time; and gunpowder deteriorates quicker, if exposed to air and moisture.  

To suggest that these cops were carrying ammunition so old that even factory ammunition would lose effectiveness is ... well, mind-boggling.

I don't know what the NYPD Commissioner of Police is going to do about that, but he might take a few 'first steps' just in case:

(1)  Every cop on the force turns in his current ammunition ... or better yet, is required to shoot it on the practice range, and their scores are recorded;
(2) Every cop on the force is issued brand new ammunition;
(3) Every cop on the force is required to qualify twice a year, using his issued ammunition (ALL OF IT!) and is then issued new, fresh ammunition.
(4) The 'issued ammunition', as soon as it is purchased, is tested (random sample) for penetration of ballistic gel under various items of clothing, and also material such as cardboard, wallboard, and glass.

Because the cops on the beat might very well be correct .... there may be something wrong with their "bullets".   It may simply be that the ammunition is not expended in practice and has not been replaced in years.

Nah .. I don't really believe that.  It takes a long time for sealed ammunition to deteriorate to the point where it won't penetrate a denim jacket!   And police are required to qualify with their issued sidearm annually; surely they use their issued ammunition, and are then issued fresh ammunition.

I'm not about to suggest that the cops gunfire didn't actually hit the target.  That assumes that the cops can't hit what they aim at .. and that would be just silly!

Everybody know, police are the only ones qualified to engage criminals in gunfights, because cops are so well trained and stuff.

.Civilians are the people we don't trust to handle a firearm in a gunfight.  (Except for Criminals, of course!   They always have the best guns, best gear, fresh ammo and they practice ALL THE TIME!)

You Get The Police Force You Deserve

British police reluctant to carry guns because of prosecution fears: Home News

 Police chiefs are struggling to recruit enough officers willing to carry a gun to tackle a Paris-style terror attack, because they fear they will be treated as criminal suspects if they use their weapon in the line of duty ... potential recruits were being deterred because of fears they could spend years under investigation after a decision to fire on a suspect ...

THIS is what you get when your "litigious society" is more focused on criticizing the cops than stopping the bad guys.

Curiously, the Brits are quick to criticize America for being a "Litigious Society":   and if you read both the lead article, and the article linked to in the preceding line ...  ^  ...

... then you have just learned the meaning of 'IRONY'.

To Protect and to Serve ... whom?

No First Amendment Right To Film Police - Law Officer:
(April 97, 2016)

 Lower federal courts have generally said that the First Amendment protects a right to record and photograph law enforcement in public view. Some restrictions may be constitutional, but simply...

... the author continues:

But that may have changed last Friday in the case, Fields v. City of Philadelphia. That case takes a different, more narrow approach.  There is no constitutional right to video-record police, the court says, when the act of recording is unaccompanied by “challenge or criticism” of the police conduct. 

REFERENCES:

• Fields v. City of Philadelphia
• Glik v. Cunniffe

I'm as staunch a supporter of Law Enforcement Officers as anyone in this room, and I completely understand the stated argument that photographing LEOs during the performance of their duty may seem a threat to officers because their face (and often their name) may be publicized to a degree with which they feel personally uncomfortable.


It's a tough job.   I couldn't do it!

But the men and women who have chosen the Law Enforcement profession have accepted that obligation; although sometimes it seems as if they are often castigated for their lapses, rarely lauded for their accomplishments, and for their devotion to duty.

There's that word again:

DUTY!

When LEOs are 'at work', they refer to it as 'duty'.

The word, in several contexts, is synonymous with 'obligation'.

A 'duty', or an 'obligation', cannot be fulfilled anonymously.   Which is why I'm disappointed when police object to being photographed while doing their duty ... as if there was something wrong with what they do.

Back in The Day, if 'they' didn't know who you were ... if you didn't have a duty to perform ... you were not a Servant of The People; you were just some anonymous bully who sometimes arrested another bully.

So, when did policemen become ashamed of doing their job?
There was a time when the local policeman was known by name.   "The Cop On The Block" was often a neighborhood figure ... a foot patrolman, who had a pistol, a billy-club night stick, a whistle, and a call-box key.  (I'm channeling  Sean Connery in "The Untouchables" here.)

Ness: [looking at a gold chain Malone is holding] What is that?Malone: Ah, I’m among the heathen. That is my call box key, and that… is my St. Jude medallion.Ness: Saint who?George Stone: Santo Jude. The patron saint of lost causes.Malone: And policemen.Ness: Well, which are we, gentlemen – policemen, or lost causes?

... and if we have this day moved beyond the cop on the block, then our society is much the poorer for it!

How Police Can Get Around "Open Carry" laws to harass you

Connecticut Carry - Press Releases:

On February 5th, Senior Assistant State's Attorney Timothy Sugrue published a memorandum to the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office detailing first what everyone in Connecticut should already know: The unconcealed carry of a firearm with a valid Permit to Carry Pistols or Revolvers is 100% lawful, and that police cannot stop a person carrying a firearm unconcealed (Open Carry) to demand their permit absent Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of a crime.

Here's the link to that "memorandum".

The Kid With A Bat

Police officer to sue family of teenager he shot  Hot Air:

,,,, there is the larger battle taking place in the court of public opinion. I realize that Officer Rialmo and his attorney have to look out for his best interests, but is this really helping? In an already tense atmosphere around Chicago I can’t imagine there being much sympathy for a cop who tries to sue the family that just buried their son, disturbed and/or violent as he may have been. This just sounds like an ill considered plan.

Cop responds to call ...  aggressive teen with a baseball bat.
The "The Kid With A Bat".

THERE ARE TWO POINTS OF VIEW TO BE CONSIDERED HERE"


FIRST:  The Kid With The Bat --

Oh, I don't know what was going through his head.

As much as I would like to be able to analyze what he was thinking when he used a baseball bat to confront a cop, I cannot.  My best guess is t hat there were drugs, or alcohol involved; but I can't even say that, because I don't know.

SECOND: The Cop with the Gun

Cop sees a kid with a bat, the kid is aggressive and unwilling to disarms himself.  Cop tries verbal domination techniques, the kid responds aggressively and the cop is left with "limited options".

 Cop shoots The Kid With A Bat., bullet passes through and kills neighbor behind the teen.

THIRD:  The Woman Behind The Kid With A Bat

Cop sues family of The Kid With A Bat.  Cop's options are limited, and at this point (since a person who was apparently seems too have been  uninvolved died as a result of the cop's actions, all he ("The Cop") can do is to swing the blame toward the Aggressor .. "The Kid With The Bat".)

Who's to know that the woman was behind the kid swinging the bat?  Is this a call for Baseball Bat Control?  In the middle of a firefight, the Tunnel Vision thing happens, and all you can see is the target.

An "uninvolved" person has died, she hs the cop's bullet in her, it's obvious who was the instrument of her death.

Now, we're talking about who was RESPONSIBLE for her death!

The cop has responded by suing the family of The Kid With A Bat., who is identified as the person who caused the whole thing.

I don't know, maybe so.  But one thing is sure;

The cop didn't know that the woman was behind the kid, had no idea that there was an Innocent involved, and is completely innocent of any death resulting from his response.

So the cop sues the estate of the kid with the bat.  What else was he to do?  Admit fault when no fault was possible to define?

Okay so I'm prejudiced in favor of the policeman.  I don't blame him (the cop) for trying to shift the blame, because it wasn't HIS idea to get into a gunfight!

His best game plan was to go home at the end of his shift.  NOBODY wants to get into a gunfight .

Well, except for The Kid With A Bat.

Tragedy or Collateral Damage?

At this point, we have no idea whether the Woman was a partner with The Kid With The Bat, or an Innocent Bystander, or something in between.    My guess is that she was an innocent, one way or the other.  But we don't know that, and I'm waiting to read about the results of the investigation which mus surely ensue./

It doesn't really matter, though.  Whatever The Kid With The Bat had going on for him, it would be impossible under all but the most arcane circumstances to blame The Woman for the tragic outcome of this confrontation.

Well .. maybe.  Usually.

We'll find out more, in the weeks to come.

Should toy guns be illegal?

Man with toy gun killed by Baltimore cop. Should toy guns be illegal? ( video) - CSMonitor.com:

An off-duty Baltimore policeman on Saturday shot and killed a man he says appeared to be holding him at gunpoint in the suburbs of Linthicum Heights. But when Anne Arudnel County detectives surveyed the crime scene, they realized the would-be robber was wielding a toy gun.
Amid national debate over US gun laws, some think banning fake guns is a no-brainer.
By Story Hinckley, Staff DECEMBER 21, 2015  

I agree, I think banning fake guns is is a no-brainer.
As in: anyone who thinks banning fake guns has no brain cells worth preserving.

Don't blame the "gun"; blame the actors who precipitate the tragedy.  (Often the person who gave a kid a realistic-looking toy gun.  See below.)

We read a couple of stories a year about someone getting shot (usually by a police officer) because they are brandishing a toy gun.   Sometimes that is a tool which a person is using to commit a crime, as in this case.

Sometimes it is a toy which a child waves at a policeman, thinking it a harmless joke; it never is.  
It's too often a tragedy:

See: Tamir Rice
See: Andy Lopez

In the child's case, they needed to be taught by their parent, guardian, responsible adult or that weird 'uncle' who shows up to talk to mamma .... that it is never a good idea to threaten someone with a toy, even as a joke.   That's Lesson Number One in Responsible Gun Ownership (and if you don't think kids learn how to be responsible when they get their first toy gun, you are part of the problem.)

In the case of a hold-up, life is like a box of chawk-uh-lahts; you never know what you're going to get when you're trying to strong-arm an armed cop ... or citizen.

Why would a hold-up man (or boy) try to rob a stranger using a toy gun?  

Because:

• he's very new to the game and can't afford a real gun; 
• or because he keeps buying dope with the money he's stolen before and forgets to buy a gun;
• or because he's trying to avoid being charged with Armed Robbery in case he gets busted;
• or because he is desperate;
• or because he doesn't REALLY want to shoot someone, and figures the worst that can happen is he gets the crap beat out of him:
• or because he is stupid.  (Well, that much is reliably assumable, right from the get-go!)

He probably doesn't expect to get shot.

(Which right there, in four words, is the best argument for Concealed Carry Laws As An Aid To Social Respect.)

The thing is, the cop doesn't know it's a toy.  He has to assume it's a real gun, and he's about to get shot.  It's that thing about decision-making, judgement, confusion, Situational Awareness and Rule Number One (see below).

Rogue Gun!

Boulder deputy shoots self during handgun training:
(September 10, 2015)

BOULDER - A deputy with the Boulder County Sheriff's Office was injured while participating in the department's handgun training Thursday morning. The deputy was on the firing line at 9:40 a.m., when he drew his weapon and shot at a target. When he was holstering his weapon and turning to the range training deputy, he said he shot himself in the leg.

In COLORADO????
Who knew?  I thought they were a safe, Democratic State!  They still let their cops carry guns?

Since the deputy was obviously a Highly Trained Peace Officer, the blame can only be directed to the gun.  Um .. pistol.  Handgun. Whatever.
(Hat Tip:  David Codrea)