Murphy police very professional

[THE ENGINEER]

I was heading home from a late run to CVS for a Rx when I had a purple M3 BMW slam on their brakes in front of me for no reason at all. They get behind me a ride my bumper, then get next to me and flip me off. These two repeated this garbage for the next mile. I said screw it and called the police. Two Murphy police officers quickly responded and nabbed the guys. I pulled over with them and explained what had happened. I handed one officer my DL and CHL, and informed him that my weapon was on my hip. He asked if it was in a holster (yes it was) and if I would hand it to him until they were finished. I said no problem and handed him the holsered weapon. He later brought my unloaded weapon back and placed it on the passenger floorboard and said he would give the magazine back when they were finished. After they did their thing, he told me that I did the right thing by calling them and handed me back my magazine. He asked that I do not load it behind them, but said he had no problem if I pull over somewhere and re-arm. Both police officers were very professional and good guys. We need more like them.

[seamusTX]

Both police officers were very professional ...

I don't share that opinion. You had already shown that you were a good guy by not shooting at the idiots. Why did they have to disarm you?

- Jim

[nitrogen]

I'd be interested in finding out if this is Murphy PD Policy, or if it was just the individual officers. A friend of mine got the same treatment after a traffic stop.

[Xander]

Both police officers were very professional ...

I don't share that opinion. You had already shown that you were a good guy by not shooting at the idiots. Why did they have to disarm you?

- Jim

It's just my opinion of course, but I don't think I can fault a cop for removing a firearm in a situation where there's been an altercation and both parties are still present. If they could predict when things where going to go wrong, it'd be a lot safer job than it is.

[Xander]

I'd be interested in finding out if this is Murphy PD Policy, or if it was just the individual officers. A friend of mine got the same treatment after a traffic stop.

Now that, I don't see a need for. I think it's fairly well established at this point that CHL holders don't shoot cops during traffic stops.

[THE ENGINEER]

Both police officers were very professional ...

I don't share that opinion. You had already shown that you were a good guy by not shooting at the idiots. Why did they have to disarm you?

- Jim

Others will disagree, but I personally do not have an issue with an officer disarming me while he/she is maintaining a polite and professional attitude toward me. I may be wrong, and I know there are recent events reflecting that even though there are officers present it may still be useful for a citizen to remain armed, but I felt confident that I was never in any danger after being disarmed. To be honest, I would probably do the same thing as the officer. Its just one less potential danger the officer has to worry about if he/she is the only one armed.

BTW, not shooting someone for giving you the finger or cutting you off does not show that you are a good guy.

[flintknapper]

Both police officers were very professional ...

I don't share that opinion. You had already shown that you were a good guy by not shooting at the idiots. Why did they have to disarm you?

- Jim

Others will disagree, but I personally do not have an issue with an officer disarming me while he/she is maintaining a polite and professional attitude toward me. I may be wrong, and I know there are recent events reflecting that even though there are officers present it may still be useful for a citizen to remain armed, but I felt confident that I was never in any danger after being disarmed. To be honest, I would probably do the same thing as the officer. Its just one less potential danger the officer has to worry about if he/she is the only one armed.

BTW, not shooting someone for giving you the finger or cutting you off does not show that you are a good guy.

If they didn't ask for your pocket knife, OC spray, tire tool...etc, then I submit they still were not "safe" if we are to use the logic above.

Additionally, you might have had another pistol in your vehicle (they didn't ask).

Something I am at a loss to understand is: If the officer is so concerned about his/her safety....why in the world would they have the CHL holder hand them their weapon?

If ever you were going to cause them any harm, this would be the perfect opportunity. They have literally given you permission to draw on them. Crazy!

As for removing the magazine and placing the pistol back in the vehicle, did they ask if you had a "spare" mag? If not, then they weren't really very safe IMO.

I really hope this doesn't become "policy" with LEO or their departments.

Just my .0002 on it.

[Xander]

Something I am at a loss to understand is: If the officer is so concerned about his/her safety....why in the world would they have the CHL holder hand them their weapon?

I would submit that in this situation, they *wouldn't* be primarily concerned with their own safely. They'd be primarily concerned that the situation didn't re-escalate. Arguments can turn deadly in a hurry, and if I were a cop, I'd want to make sure that if I had to stop a fight, it wasn't going to be a gunfight. When you don't know what's going on, you don't know either of the parties involved, you don't know the history...I really don't think it's such a terrible idea for the officer to disarm a CHL holder in that scenario.

[Xander]

If they didn't ask for your pocket knife, OC spray, tire tool...etc, then I submit they still were not "safe" if we are to use the logic above.

The other difference is, it's a lot easier for you to kill someone quickly at a distance with a pistol than with a pocket knife, OC, tire tool, etc.

One of the skills that cops use every day is cautiousness. They might take risks with their own lives, but we expect them to keep us as safe as they reasonably can, and if I were a cop, and I knew that I could eliminate any possibility of having to explain to a review board why one party to an altercation killed the other party with a handgun that I knew he had and let him retain, I'd eliminate it. I dunno...I may be a minority here, but given the situation, I don't think it's a big deal, and I think it's the same thing I'd do in his shoes.

[flintknapper]

If they didn't ask for your pocket knife, OC spray, tire tool...etc, then I submit they still were not "safe" if we are to use the logic above.

The other difference is, it's a lot easier for you to kill someone quickly at a distance with a pistol than with a pocket knife, OC, tire tool, etc.

One of the skills that cops use every day is cautiousness. They might take risks with their own lives, but we expect them to keep us as safe as they reasonably can, and if I were a cop, and I knew that I could eliminate any possibility of having to explain to a review board why one party to an altercation killed the other party with a handgun that I knew he had and let him retain, I'd eliminate it. I dunno...I may be a minority here, but given the situation, I don't think it's a big deal, and I think it's the same thing I'd do in his shoes.

Your only real assurance of achieving the level of safety you seek in both of your posts is to handcuff and detain both parties.

Otherwise, you have only succeeded in disarming a person of ONE weapon. It isn't mentioned whether or not the officer asked the other person if he had any weapons, and if he did ask, did he check to make certain. I might accept the pretense if this were the case.

Otherwise, you are asking me to believe that a law abiding CHL holder that had just reported an aggressive driver... would in the presence of an LEO ..."lose his cool" and assault the other driver. Seems very unlikely IMO.

[seamusTX]

.. you are asking me to believe that a law abiding CHL holder that had just reported an aggressive driver... would in the presence of an LEO ..."lose his cool" and assault the other driver. Seems very unlikely IMO.

Word, as the kids say these days.

- Jim

[KBCraig]

Others will disagree, but I personally do not have an issue with an officer disarming me while he/she is maintaining a polite and professional attitude toward me.

I am one of those who disagree. I'd rather the officer obey the law than be "polite and professional".

Unless you were doing something that made the officer "reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual" (which I doubt you were), then he had no legal authority to disarm you.

If he'd truly had such a "reasonable belief", you would have spent most of your time there in the back of his car and/or in handcuffs.

[Venus Pax]

I don't like the idea of an LEO having the right to disarm me. I submit to this b/c it is the law, but am uncomfortable with it.
Although most LEOs are wonderful, dedicated people, there are the bad apples, as in every profession.
It isn't unheard of for one of these types to actually assault a person, using the badge and all that goes with it as a tool.

[ScubaSigGuy]

I'd be interested in finding out if this is Murphy PD Policy, or if it was just the individual officers. A friend of mine got the same treatment after a traffic stop.

I don't think it is policy. I was pulled over for a late night traffic stop a few weeks ago and the officer did not disarm me. In fact he let me go with a warning <<knocking on wood>>

[phddan]

"He asked if it was in a holster (yes it was) and if I would hand it to him until they were finished."

How young was this leo?

"After they did their thing, he told me that I did the right thing by calling them and handed me back my magazine. He asked that I do not load it behind them, but said he had no problem if I pull over somewhere and re-arm. "

I think that is going way beyond the leo's scope of authority.

Dan