Interesting/Confusing LEO encounter my son had

[RRobaldo]

Several weeks ago, my son had an interesting LEO encounter.

He drives a 1966 Mustang and so garners a little bit of attention. This particular evening he was driving home from work and was pulled over by a local Sherrif Deputy. No big deal, apparently one of his tail lights had burned out.

My son gave the deputy his registration, license, and his CCW (although here in Florida he does not have to give the CCW).

The Deputy didn't make a big deal over it, but asked him if he was carrying (yes sir), where is the weapon (5 o'clock inner waist band sir).

Then the Deputy did what I consider to be the stupidest thing I had ever heard a LEO do. He asked my son to un-holster his weapon and place it in the glove box! Which my son did do.

Then after informing my son why he stopped him and that he would not be issuing a ticket, he told my son to wait for him to leave, then re-holster the weapon because he has a CCW and is allowed to carry on his person.

All in all, an uneventful stop. Except...

He REQUESTED my son to handle a firearm at a traffic stop!
Had my son actually been a bad guy, there is no way the officer could have drawn his gun to defend his own life had my son intended to shoot him!!!


Are there any LEO's who might want to comment on this Deputies reasoning? I just can't see anything but a wreckless death wish.

 

[sheepdogjmanz]

"Wreckless death wish,"no! My self, or any other LEO, cant tell you what was going through that deputies mind at that time and during his stop. But what I can explain and give you some insight to, is my thoughts, opinions and what I would have done. I can only speculate that the deputy felt comfortable around your son carrying a gun, or he wouldn't have allowed him to handle it. I have always told CCW holders who were carrying to leave their hands on the steering wheel where they can be seen.
All officers are different in the way they handle their business, I don't do things the same way as the next guy, and neither will he. Everything we do is done with safety in mind, and there is different ways the same situation can be handled. The most important thing is that its done safely and with the officer in the most tactically advantageous position possible.
The best answer for your question is, he felt comfortable enough around your son that he didn't recognize him as a threat. I cant imagine an officer perceiving a threat and then allowing someone to handle a gun.

 

[amsgator]

Maybe he would rather know when the gun was going to be handled than react to a surprise. Not sure. I personally would not have gone about it that way, but I was not there so I can't question why he did it the way he did.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Ams and jmans, I take it you are both Leo's? In your opinions, since there was no notification requirement, did him giving the permit complicate things unnecessarily for a broken taillight? Should his son have had his permit ready in case it involved something more substantial, but waited until he felt it was necessary?

In this case, if he hadn't told the officer, I would assume the officer would check his papers and then inform him his taillight was out and let him go. Keeping it simple.

Also, when in a traffic stop do officers usually get shot? As they approach? After contact? During the ticket? After the ticket?

The last officer shot in my area [been 77 years since the last one was shot] was 7 months ago. He was shot as he was approaching the vehicle, the lady stuck the gun out the window and fired backwards and drove off. The bullet went right under his left arm above his vest. She didn't aim, it was a horrible unlucky shot.

 

[RRobaldo]

"The best answer for your question is, he felt comfortable enough around your son that he didn't recognize him as a threat. I cant imagine an officer perceiving a threat and then allowing someone to handle a gun.

I understand what you're saying, and of course, nobody except the deputy knows what was going through his mind...but it still seems to me that this type of action could get him killed one day.

If he WAS comfortable enough that he didn't recognize him as a threat, then why make him handle his firearm in this manner?

It's far safer where it was than in my son's hands. Not just for the deputy, but also safer for my son.

We haven't even gotten into the inherent dangers of drawing a weapon while seated, buckled, and nervous from being stopped!

Then again, if he DID have some fear that the firearm could be used against him, making my son draw it from his holster does not seem to be the smartest move to make.

 

[RRobaldo]

In this case, if he hadn't told the officer, I would assume the officer would check his papers and then inform him his taillight was out and let him go. Keeping it simple.

We were taught to inform even though it's not required in Florida. It's a good habit to be in when you travel through states that do require it. Also, I view it as a courtesy to the LEO. It's far better that he find out up front, than to have them accidentally see it and "freak out".

I know and understand that there are differing schools of thought on this, but I for one believe that by far most officers are upright and deserve to be treated with respect.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Also, I view it as a courtesy to the LEO. It's far better that he find out up front, than to have them accidentally see it and "freak out".

I know and understand that there are differing schools of thought on this, but I for one believe that by far most officers are upright and deserve to be treated with respect.

He REQUESTED my son to handle a firearm at a traffic stop!
Had my son actually been a bad guy, there is no way the officer could have drawn his gun to defend his own life had my son intended to shoot him!!!


Are there any LEO's who might want to comment on this Deputies reasoning? I just can't see anything but a wreckless death wish.

Having completed military security forces training, there is no explanation for the deputy's request. It goes against every bit of logic and reasoning.

 

[localgirl]

The officer asked your son to secure the weapon because the action puts the officer in control. It's got nothing to do with logic or common sense. It has to do with a perceived feeling of being in control of the situation and any potential danger.

 

[NavyLCDR]

The officer asked your son to secure the weapon because the action puts the officer in control. It's got nothing to do with logic or common sense. It has to do with a perceived feeling of being in control of the situation and any potential danger.

ABSOLUTELY! Very well said!

 

[SGB]

The officer asked your son to secure the weapon because the action puts the officer in control. It's got nothing to do with logic or common sense. It has to do with a perceived feeling of being in control of the situation and any potential danger.

 

[Firefighterchen]

We were taught to inform even though it's not required in Florida. It's a good habit to be in when you travel through states that do require it. Also, I view it as a courtesy to the LEO. It's far better that he find out up front, than to have them accidentally see it and "freak out".

I know and understand that there are differing schools of thought on this, but I for one believe that by far most officers are upright and deserve to be treated with respect.

Yeah, we are on completely different trains, but that's ok, our trains pass by each other every so often like now. I am not really interested on the notification part, but the actual action part (second half of my first part).

I was taught, if the bad guy has the jump on me, when he asks for my hands to go up or for me to give him my wallet, that was the time to go for my gun (if I felt my life was in danger), since he is expecting my hands to move, and won't react as fast to my movement. It would seem if someone wanted to shoot an officer, it would of happened way before the contact, or right at that time when the officer felt relaxed next to an individual with a gun in hand. Seems like an example of the officer letting his guard down and becoming complacent on the job. (that is a complete assumption because I don't have a clue what the officer was thinking).

 

[Mobuck]

Why would the officer need to feel "in control of the situation" over a tail light bulb? That line is pure BS. He just wanted to show his meager authority over a citizen who had already gone above the minimum requirement of the law. Next time don't give any more than the least the law allows would be my suggestion. If the cop can't function within the laws made by the legislature, he needs to get a job at Walmart stocking shelves or swabbing the toilet.

 

[Samuel]

I've never heard of that as a police officer. Doing that put the officer in danger, and if I was his field training officer I would be very disturbed by it. From only what you stated, simply keeping the hands of the driver on the steering wheel would have sufficed.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Why would the officer need to feel "in control of the situation" over a tail light bulb? That line is pure BS. He just wanted to show his meager authority over a citizen who had already gone above the minimum requirement of the law. Next time don't give any more than the least the law allows would be my suggestion. If the cop can't function within the laws made by the legislature, he needs to get a job at Walmart stocking shelves or swabbing the toilet.

After the notification it was much more than just a tail light issue. Authority and control...is there much of a difference? While I agree with your overall message, I don't agree with belittling grocery clerks and janitors. Over the last decade, I hold way more respect for those positions than policemen.

 

[Deserteagle]

Why would the officer need to feel "in control of the situation" over a tail light bulb? That line is pure BS. He just wanted to show his meager authority over a citizen who had already gone above the minimum requirement of the law. Next time don't give any more than the least the law allows would be my suggestion. If the cop can't function within the laws made by the legislature, he needs to get a job at Walmart stocking shelves or swabbing the toilet.

If you dont want our officers to be able to take control of a situation and to feel comfortable doing so, then we would not have a police force. The majority would quit after realizing they can easily be killed, and the few remaining would probably be killed since they could not take control of situations and put themselves in the most tactically advantaged position.

 

[NavyLCDR]

If you dont want our officers to be able to take control of a situation and to feel comfortable doing so, then we would not have a police force. The majority would quit after realizing they can easily be killed, and the few remaining would probably be killed since they could not take control of situations and put themselves in the most tactically advantaged position.

The officer in question did nothing to take control of "the situation" nor did he "put himself in the most tactically advantaged position." The officer ordered the subject to perform an action that increased the danger to himself, to the subject, and to any innocent bystanders that might have been around.

The officer clearly did this for one of two reasons: either he was exerting authority merely to exert authority and giving orders because he could...or he was just plain inept and had no idea what a completely wrong situation he had created by telling the subject to handle his firearm during the stop. In either case, this particular officer needs to go back to basic training. And if he was giving orders and exerting authority for no other reason than to puff his badge out further, he needs to be formally reprimanded, because his puffing is putting at least two people at greater risk.

 

[Nightmare45]

Texas requires you to inform the officer, not an issue, I think it has stopped me from getting several tickets.

 

[tuts40]

The officer asked your son to secure the weapon because the action puts the officer in control. It's got nothing to do with logic or common sense. It has to do with a perceived feeling of being in control of the situation and any potential danger.

How dare you say what I wuz gunna, but you said it much better than I could have. If I may, I might add that it's entirely likely that it may not have been as much as being in control of the situation/danger, but more of the "I'm the LEO here, you teensie-weensie lil' rediculous CCW holder, now do as I say" thing. Elitism. ...But I won't say that as it might be silly. ;-)

 

[tuts40]

Texas requires you to inform the officer, not an issue, I think it has stopped me from getting several tickets.

Lead foot? Aggressive driver? Expired plates each year? Pray tell!

 

[Deserteagle]

The officer in question did nothing to take control of "the situation" nor did he "put himself in the most tactically advantaged position." The officer ordered the subject to perform an action that increased the danger to himself, to the subject, and to any innocent bystanders that might have been around.

The officer clearly did this for one of two reasons: either he was exerting authority merely to exert authority and giving orders because he could...or he was just plain inept and had no idea what a completely wrong situation he had created by telling the subject to handle his firearm during the stop. In either case, this particular officer needs to go back to basic training. And if he was giving orders and exerting authority for no other reason than to puff his badge out further, he needs to be formally reprimanded, because his puffing is putting at least two people at greater risk.

This argument is all hearsay. None of us including you have any knowledge about this officer's department policies. My post took up a much more broad argument about general policing because of a poster who seems to have little or no knowledge of the criminal justice system. (The poster makes a comment about the whole reason for being pulled over was a broken tail light and he doesnt think that warrants any show of force at all by a cop. He fails to realize pulling people over for tail lights is a big deal for officer safety and for catching wanted criminals).

In my opinion, the officer attempted to place himself in a more advantaged position. Smart or stupid way of going about it? I can't say because I wasn't there, nor was anyone here. So lets rephrase your argument by placing the words "I feel that..." or "in my opinion...", or "based on hearsay evidence, I feel that the officer..."