Gun in a park scenario...

[NavyLCDR]

In Washington it is perfectly legal to openly carry a firearm in any park. In fact, state law makes it illegal for cities, counties and municipalities from regulating the possession and carrying of firearms. So, with that in mind, a post on another thread sparked me to pose the following scenarios/questions for discussion:

A man wearing a long, untucked shirt is pushing a little girl in a swing at a playground in the park. It's a summer day and there are many other children and parents present. A woman calls 911 and reports a suspicious man on the playground. Cops show up, talk to the woman who points to the man with the untucked shirt. The cops say there is nothing illegal about a man pushing a girl on a swing and they leave.

A few minutes after the police leave, the man pulls a gun from under his shirt and shoots several of the children and parents and then himself. The police find a note in the man's house that says how distraught he is that his ex-wife took his children from him, except for visitation every other weekend, and that he is going to take away from her what she took from him, and from as many other women as he can too.

So.....questions:

Should the police have at least contacted the man? Should the police have detained him to establish his identity? Should the police have frisked him? After all, they were responding to a 911 call reporting a suspicious person. The woman is on the news proclaiming that she called the police but they would not do anything about the man, and now look what happened!

Now let's change ONE item about the scenario above. The man in question in the park is openly carrying a handgun in a holster on his belt. Does that change any of your answers to the above questions, but it must be assumed that there is nothing illegal about open carry in a park, such as in Washington.

Think something like above won't happen?
Father who killed self, 2 sons in house fire left chilling voicemail | NJ.com

GRAHAM, Wash. — Before setting his house ablaze and killing himself and his two young sons, Josh Powell left a voicemail for family members saying he couldn't live without the boys and didn't want to go on anymore.

 

[Mojo57]

I think it's incumbent upon the officer to ascertain from the woman what it is that is "suspicious" then to use his judgment and knowledge of the law to determine whether any further action is required. What may be suspicious to this woman might be completely unsuspicious to the officer. And I think he has a duty to evaluate that complaint and make a judgment call. If the guy is shouting inchoerent obcenities while also possessing a gun then I could see a justifiable terry stop if not at least and "interview" to assess the risk further. If all he is doing is what you say and there is no other objective suspicious activity then I think ultimately the officer should leave him alone. Way too many factors to consider that would dictate the appropriate course in my opinion. Bear in mind, I think the officer should ALSO evaluate the complaining woman to see how credible SHE is to determine if the alleged suspicious behavior is just that or her being a nut case as well. If she seems reasonable then maybe give her the benefit of the doubt. If she seems like anti gun nut then maybe the officer educates her some.

 

[Bikenut]

Navy... I know you want to discuss why a little bit of fabric hiding a gun from plain view somehow makes some kind of difference.. but rather than go into the mental masturbation people indulge in for the purpose of fooling themselves that if they can't see it then it isn't there and all is well so they can "feel" good I'd rather offer my perspective... just because... well... just because.

In my opinion.....................

It is total idiocy to think that crimes can be prevented from happening. If someone wants to commit a crime they will figure out a way to do it regardless of how many "safeguards" are put in place.

Case in point... there are thousands... yes THOUSANDS! of gun laws. And not one of those pieces of paper stopped a determined criminal from shooting someone.

Now... the thing to think about is....

How much freedom are we willing to give up in order to have the illusion that a cop talking to a guy in a park ... with gun showing or with gun hidden... will stop a crime?

Or are we willing to have police reading our mail just in case we might say something that was suspicious... or have cameras on every street corner just in case someone might commit a crime... or have the police have drones overhead just in case we are trying to hide something in our back yards...

Wait.... we already have all that crap... and.....

Still no one is "safe".

But the idiots who want to "feel" safe keep clamoring for even more intrusive restrictions on freedom never understanding that ever increasing restrictions do not result in more safety... it only results in more restrictions on the freedom to live without some guy in some uniform sniffing up their arse to see if maybe they ate some explosive beans.

 

[eagleeyes]

wow that woman may have had a premonition about the man picked up on his vibes .......unfortunately the officer didn't
what a sad story but the cop really couldn't do anything or even have a right to question him legally being guns are legal there
if i were the officer i prolly would have walked by the man at least and asked him how he was doing in a casual way to get a feel for him for myself, and go from there but if he didn't act weird or threatening there is nothing the officer could have done anyways i may have watched him a while till i felt all was ok using my own intuition and gut feelings
never doubt your intuitions !!

 

[CharonPDX]

A minimal contact would be enough. Walk over, "hey, how are you?" without even mentioning that there was a call about him. Even that slight interaction should be able to set off a an officer's "spidey sense" for anything being wrong. And if they don't think anything is wrong, then the person is hiding their mental illness well enough to pass any reasonable "firearm bannable test".

Yeah, I'd love it if we had a perfect way of keeping weapons (of all kinds) out of the hands of those who would commit criminal acts of violence. But we don't. We have to choose either totalitarian state where the state goes overboard "to protect" us, or choose a free state where bad things happen by bad people who didn't show signs of being bad before.

Of course, if someone *HAS* shown signs of being bad, documented, provable signs (like being a felon,) then absolutely their rights should be restricted until they have shown that they have redeemed themselves.

 

[Treo]

Get on the phone to Ft. Lewis and call in 5th group and the 2/75th to cordon off the park and A 3/11 FA (my old unit) to lay down WP smoke and HE and go in there and get the guy.

But that's just me :biggrin:

 

[Bikenut]

Get on the phone to Ft. Lewis and call in 5th group and the 2/75th to cordon off the park and A 3/11 FA (my old unit) to lay down WP smoke and HE and go in there and get the guy.

But that's just me :biggrin:

Nope... not just you anymore... there are many SWAT that would cream their jeans to be able to do exactly what you just said with the firepower/manpower/support needed.

 

[wolf_fire]

Any report of a suspicious individual to 911 requires the LEO to approach the alleged suspicious individual and find out if the allegations are worth looking into further. I find it hard to believe that if a person said that there was a suspicious person (especially around children) that the LEOs would not even speak to the alleged suspicious person. If this indeed happened this way than someone dropped the ball.

The issue with open carrying would just cause the LEO's when approaching the man would be to ask him first to hand over the firearm for everyone's protection until they would be finished asking him questions.

 

[BluesStringer]

Setup snipped for brevity:

So.....questions:

Should the police have at least contacted the man?

Nope.

Should the police have detained him to establish his identity?

Nope.

Should the police have frisked him?

Nope.

After all, they were responding to a 911 call reporting a suspicious person.

The cop was right, there's nothing illegal about a guy pushing a kid on a swing. Just because the lady chose to dial 911, as opposed to flagging down a passing patrol unit, or dialing the non-emergency dispatcher, doesn't weaken the umm.....swinger's rights. No probable cause of a crime equals no forced contact. Cop might ask the swinger if he minds talking to him, but if swinger says nope, down the road he goes.

The woman is on the news proclaiming that she called the police but they would not do anything about the man, and now look what happened!

Bummer. The lady had good instincts, but she also had bad timing and bad preparedness. If the same instinct that led her to believe the swinger was suspicious enough to dial 911 had also told her to wait 5 or 10 minutes so that the guy's drawing his weapon just as the cops roll up on the scene, well, obviously, her instincts would've been a thousand percent more brag-worthy for the cameras after the fact. Or alternatively, she should've armed herself months/years before and been prepared to deal with the fact that cops are almost never there at the very second when things go south. No matter what bragging rights the lady earned for having noticed something was amiss though, the cop did the right thing by leaving the guy alone if he had no probable cause to initiate a forced contact on.

Now let's change ONE item about the scenario above. The man in question in the park is openly carrying a handgun in a holster on his belt. Does that change any of your answers to the above questions, but it must be assumed that there is nothing illegal about open carry in a park, such as in Washington.

Nope, doesn't change anything for me at all, especially if open carry is unambiguously legal in the hypothetical jurisdiction.

Think something like above won't happen?
Father who killed self, 2 sons in house fire left chilling voicemail | NJ.com

Well, that's really nothing at all like your above hypothetical scenario. Your scenario was a public park with at least several people around. The linked story is about a guy going off the rails in his own home and taking his kids with him. No guns involved, open or concealed.

Besides that though, heck yeah, that Josh Powell story is gut-wrenching. May God rest those poor little boys' souls, and their mother's, and may Josh rot in Hell for eternity.

Blues

 

[NavyLCDR]

Any report of a suspicious individual to 911 requires the LEO to approach the alleged suspicious individual and find out if the allegations are worth looking into further.

So, you can post a legal requirement for this? There isn't one. Police are not required to respond at all to every 911 call that they get, let alone interview the subject of every call. I would suggest you read this:
Dial 911 and Die

"OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK: Do the police owe a duty to protect you from criminal attack? In most of the United States, the answer is "no." In fact, in most cases the police do not even have to respond to your emergency 911 call."

I find it hard to believe that if a person said that there was a suspicious person (especially around children) that the LEOs would not even speak to the alleged suspicious person. If this indeed happened this way than someone dropped the ball.

Apparently, I have misled some people. The situation I presented in the park was hypothetical. However, as can be seen by the real story of the man burning his house down after taking a hatchet to his kids...it is a plausible scenario.

The issue with open carrying would just cause the LEO's when approaching the man would be to ask him first to hand over the firearm for everyone's protection until they would be finished asking him questions.

And what if the man refused to hand over his LAWFULLY possessed firearms? What if the man refused to answer any of the questions asked by police? Police are always free to ask questions, there is no law against that. Demanding an answer and disarming a person LAWFULLY carrying a firearm are completely, 100% different actions than merely asking questions.

 

[NickFro]

Think the officer should have at least spoken to the man. Maybe the officer would have noticed some strange behavior or nervousness in the man. I have no problem with being approached by an officer who is wondering if and why I carry. If you're not hiding something you shouldnt have a problem with it.

 

[NavyLCDR]

If you're not hiding something you shouldnt have a problem with it.

One must be careful and vigilant, however; just because you are not hiding something is no guarantee that a police officer won't find something to cite you for, especially if you talk to them long enough and answer enough of their questions.

 

[lc9'er]

I just wish I could read ONE opening post void of the words:

could
should
would

Having worked in the hospitality business for over 20 years, I have been involved in 3 armed robberies, and shot during one. Hind sight is wonderful, yet each of my experiences was different and there was no time for much thought. All robberies over in less than a minute. Everything that happens is reactionary to the specific event taking place.

sent from my sending device

 

[NickFro]

Lemme reiterate. There is no reason why the officer couldn't have just TALKED to the man, not asking anything about his gun. That alone is no infringement on carry rights. And maybe in just casually talking to the man, the officer might have picked up on something strange with him.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I just wish I could read ONE opening post void of the words:

could
should
would

Here you go:
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/gene...2118-waffle-house-shooting-good-guy-wins.html

It's still on the same forum page as this thread.

Lemme reiterate. There is no reason why the officer couldn't have just TALKED to the man, not asking anything about his gun. That alone is no infringement on carry rights. And maybe in just casually talking to the man, the officer might have picked up on something strange with him.

I absolutely agree with you.

 

[NickFro]

For the officer to just blow off the concern of another citizen is irresponsible and neglectful.

 

[lc9'er]

good one ... factual and to the point.

sent from my sending device

 

[Bikenut]

Think the officer should have at least spoken to the man. Maybe the officer would have noticed some strange behavior or nervousness in the man. I have no problem with being approached by an officer who is wondering if and why I carry. If you're not hiding something you shouldnt have a problem with it.

Actually... if I'm engaged in a legal activity with nothing to hide then the cops have no reason to pester me hoping to find, or create, something I'm hiding.

I happen to believe that I am innocent until proven guilty and it is NOT ME who has to prove my innocence by allowing the police to interrogate me but it is THEM who have to prove there is reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause that I'm guilty.

 

[Bikenut]

For the officer to just blow off the concern of another citizen is irresponsible and neglectful.

Let me fix that for you.....

It would be irresponsible for an officer to just blow off a legitimate concern of another citizen.

And just because some citizen gets their knickers in a wad over a legal activity they are scared of ISN'T a legitimate concern.

 

[Wyldekard]

Yes tragic things happen. Unfortunately that is part of being alive. Always has been. In this scenerio police interaction could have just as easily set him off sooner as stopped him and there is no proof any fewer people would have been hurt or killed.

I'm sure that I don't want to live in a police state or country. A place where if you are just a little different or downright odd, you can be detained or arrested because someone in authority thinks their "Spidey sense" is tingling. A state where you can just disappear without a trace because somebody is a hoplophobe. A place where you don't stand a chance because somebody thinks you look guilty of farting in a public place.

Study history. These places have already existed, i.e. Nazi Germany. Look around you. These places are on the evening news virtually every day. I've worked in countries that are nearly at this point today. Great Britain is virtually a police state. I nearly got arrested and deported for having a leatherman tool on my belt while on a lunch break from work. I used the damn thing almost all the time when I was installing a telecom switch. If it wasn't for the support of the Brits I was working with convincing the Bobby I was a just a dumb American, it would have happened. A Leatherman tool is considered a lethal weapon and a felony in England.

I don't want to be insulting, but I can't think of any other way to put this. All the people who think intervention/detainment or arrest/prosecution for anything and everything, trivial to tragic, have absolutely no true concept of what you are asking for.

Take responsibility for your own safety and security. That is what is needed to make this world a safer place to live.

How would this scenerio have ended if the woman who phoned the police had a weapon that she had her hand on when the shooter pulled his? Most likely, a lot differently.