If I do it it's a threat, but if a LEO does it it's not?

[C-dub]

This may not be the correct place for this, but it's a question that has been in my head for a while now and with the other thread on disarming running I thought I'd ask.

For those LEOs that choose to NOT disarm someone they usually qualify it with something like, just keep your hands away from it or don't touch it or something similar. However, LEOs rest their hand on theirs all the time even when they are talking with someone. Why isn't that perceived as a threat or intimidation? Or is it, but it's okay if a LEO does it? I don't get it.

[smoothoperator]

Have you read Animal Farm?

[C-dub]

A long long time ago. I don't remember much.

[Thomas]

Police Officers are open carrying though. It's a natural/easy place to rest/place the hands. If you wear a toolbelt, you'll probably find yourself doing the same thing with your tools. Sometimes, I'll find myself placing my thumbs inside my waste band or pocket.

[C-dub]

Police Officers are open carrying though. It's a natural/easy place to rest/place the hands. If you wear a toolbelt, you'll probably find yourself doing the same thing with your tools. Sometimes, I'll find myself placing my thumbs inside my waste band or pocket.

I forgot to mention about reading things like this from OC states. There are plenty of examples all over you tube where the officer does not disarm the person whiel they are trying to verify the legality of someone openly carrying. I thought it would also be pertinent here because of so many OC discussions going on leading up to next year's legislative session.

[Bullwhip]

Bad for police to do it too.

The officers I know like what they call the "interrogation stance". Some do it different ways, but most put one hand on top of hte other both hands open, around the belly button area or belt buckle. Nothing tucked in nothing clinched just resting lightly, lets them move fast to a draw if needed or put both hands up or hands on if needed.

I heard of some getting write ups for putting their hands on their gun all the time especially unsnapping the holster.

[handog]

Because you and I, as members of the general public are presumed scum bag criminals until proven otherwise. You could be an escaped convict after all. The LEO has a badge and can draw on you at will. He's the good guy. Why should you feel threatened if one of Austin's finest has his hand on his holstered hand gun while questioning you.

That isn't the only way they use intimidation. Ever have your constitutional rights suspended at a DUI road block. Basically pulled over without probable cause. The police have great latitude in what they can do, once they have you stopped and under their control. Like the hand on gun, the desired effect is to establish a sense of fear and intimidation among the population.

[jimlongley]

When I was active in IDPA, I found myself developing the bad habit of resting my hand on my gun, as well as using it for a hat rack. I changed my habits.

[E.Marquez]

Because you and I, as members of the general public are presumed scum bag criminals until proven otherwise. You could be an escaped convict after all. The LEO has a badge and can draw on you at will. He's the good guy. Why should you feel threatened if one of Austin's finest has his hand on his holstered hand gun while questioning you.

That isn't the only way they use intimidation. Ever have your constitutional rights suspended at a DUI road block. Basically pulled over without probable cause. The police have great latitude in what they can do, once they have you stopped and under their control. Like the hand on gun, the desired effect is to establish a sense of fear and intimidation among the population.

1st: Do we really need to add in the general LEO bashing to present a point of view?
2nd: You may not agree, but for now and for the last few years.. the Supreme Court of the USA has been the finial authority on what is, or is not constitutional.. and again while you as a non constitutional scholar, may not agree.. the SCOTUS has opined, DUI check points DO NOT violate constitutional rights.


I have not personally seen a LEO stand by, talk to a citizen in many years with his hand on his gun, unless he was doing so as a tactical move (bad choice in my tactical experience, but that's a different thread)

Would I address the issue on the street? NOPE... would I have a polite, professional discussion with the department leadership ? You bet... it's bad tactics, bad PR, unneeded overall.. and possibly not even noticed by the LEO... as just a unintended bad habit.

[handog]

Not sure how calling the LEO a good guy is Cop bashing

A states supreme courts decision can and has taken precedent over the US constitution. Regarding roadblocks,

[C-dub]

Because you and I, as members of the general public are presumed scum bag criminals until proven otherwise. You could be an escaped convict after all. The LEO has a badge and can draw on you at will. He's the good guy. Why should you feel threatened if one of Austin's finest has his hand on his holstered hand gun while questioning you.

That isn't the only way they use intimidation. Ever have your constitutional rights suspended at a DUI road block. Basically pulled over without probable cause. The police have great latitude in what they can do, once they have you stopped and under their control. Like the hand on gun, the desired effect is to establish a sense of fear and intimidation among the population.

1st: Do we really need to add in the general LEO bashing to present a point of view?
2nd: You may not agree, but for now and for the last few years.. the Supreme Court of the USA has been the finial authority on what is, or is not constitutional.. and again while you as a non constitutional scholar, may not agree.. the SCOTUS has opined, DUI check points DO NOT violate constitutional rights.


I have not personally seen a LEO stand by, talk to a citizen in many years with his hand on his gun, unless he was doing so as a tactical move (bad choice in my tactical experience, but that's a different thread)

Would I address the issue on the street? NOPE... would I have a polite, professional discussion with the department leadership ? You bet... it's bad tactics, bad PR, unneeded overall.. and possibly not even noticed by the LEO... as just a unintended bad habit.

Someone, I think it was Oldgringo, mentioned they were glad to see you back and that you had changed your handle. Maybe you remember what Handog was put through. I do and will gladly cut him some slack here, but I also don't think what he said was all that bad either.

BTW, I haven't seen you around in a while Handog. Nice to have you back. What have you been up to?

[handog]

I Never really left C but thanks for the warm welcome. I read much more than I post. Always something to learn here..

And no, I'm not running for President of the local LEO fan club as you can tell but I cirtainly try not to offend anyone personally with my posts either.

[gigag04]

For those LEOs that choose to NOT disarm someone they usually qualify it with something like, just keep your hands away from it or don't touch it or something similar. However, LEOs rest their hand on theirs all the time even when they are talking with someone. Why isn't that perceived as a threat or intimidation? Or is it, but it's okay if a LEO does it? I don't get it.

You are being detained while the LEO investigates a crime, a significant component of his job description. Any illusions about who is in charge in that situation should be cleared up here, rather than there.

I have read many comments as of late about LEOs with "power trips" and what not. I would like to broach the subject of citizens with authority complexes...not directed at you, C-dub, but it came up while I was replying. At some basic level, if I contact any of you during a traffic stop, family violence investigation, narcotics call, or any other criminal investigation, I am temporarily seizing you, and depriving you of your free will. Much of what we as LEOs do on a contact, even though it is annoying, is because we can. Sometimes, there might even be a reasonable explanation behind it. You might not like, but that is how it is. If cops wanted to be liked, they would have served as firefighters.

Some examples:
-sit on this curb, cross your legs
-don't put your hands in your pockets
-come here
-don't handle any weapons
-turn the car off
-turn around, put your hands behind your back

So the long answer is, they can tell you do that because it is a lawful order. As a follow up, they can rest their hand on their gun (if this is the ONLY action we are discussing) because odds are, a court would hold that such behavior is not a threat. It may be lazy, tactically unsound or whatever...but not a threat.

If you do it, it would be perceived as a threat, because your were just lawfully ordered by a peace officer not to do it.



I sort of put this question into the "why can I not do everything the police can, but without the experience or authority" box in my head, but I'm trying not to, since I like you C-dub.

[srothstein]

the SCOTUS has opined, DUI check points DO NOT violate constitutional rights.

Minor technical correction, but it may help with this discussion. SCOTUS did not rule that DWI check[points do not violate the Constitution. In fact, they ruled just the opposite. Checkpoints are, as a a general rule, a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In some cases, the need to protect the public may overrule the right. Among the specific requirements to make the checkpoint legal are a state law enabling them and the checkpoint must be for something that is an immediate danger. The state law must detail what procedures must be followed (such as time, location, who to stop, etc.) The stop must also be short enough to not inconvenience the public excessively.

Drunk drivers have been ruled an immediate enough threat that there can be DWI checkpoints if there is a state law enabling them. Drug checkpoints are however illegal, as are driver's license or insurance checkpoints. In an interesting easing of the rule, a checkpoint to look for possible witnesses to a serious crime at the same location as the crime was ruled legal.

Texas has no laws enabling checkpoints and as such, DWI checkpoints are unconstitutional in Texas. Bills to enable these checkpoints have been introduced but none have passed completely yet.

[E.Marquez]

the SCOTUS has opined, DUI check points DO NOT violate constitutional rights.

Minor technical correction, but it may help with this discussion. SCOTUS did not rule that DWI check[points do not violate the Constitution. In fact, they ruled just the opposite.

I beg to differ.

Supreme Court's 6-to-3 decision today upholding sobriety checkpoints as constitutional. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion. Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote a separate concurring opinion. Justices William J. Brennan and John Paul Stevens both filed dissenting opinions.

6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 4&as_vis=1