CLICK HERE TO WIN A FREE GUN

Positive encounter with police at bank today

A little defensive are we? :cray: Have a tissue...
 
My standard response to ANY question from a law enforcement officer is "While I fully support the job that you do, I will not answer any questions from a police officer without my lawyer present. Am I free to go?"

Incidentally, I WAS a police officer for a bit over three years. While I won't argue with those of you who have good friends or family members who are cops, I WILL tell you that a significant majority of them do NOT support your second, fourth, fifth, eighth, and first amendment rights when they are an inconvenience to them.

My apologies to those truly good men and women who protect and serve. Of course, you already know that I am speaking truth.
 

Are you absolutely SURE this actually passed? It is my understanding it was shot down in committee,never even voted on.... and you can still carry open/unloaded in Kommifornia.......
 
Wish Texas had passed open carry, but in Texas only folks that can ask for ID, LEO ( not a rent cop) / magistrate. If open carry passes I assume it will not be a big issue.
 
hammer826 said:
...They are in their uniform, but I assume they are working in the capacity of private security.
Click to expand...

I would assume this... If he is in a police uniform, he is a police officer. If he is in a security uniform, he is security, but he can make a full arrest being a sworn LEO and more or less "transition" to a police officer (he would just need a phone booth to change in - LOL) when the need arises.

I have encountered many districts that will allow a company to rent a cop (not "rent-a-cop"), which is where a LEO can take on optional additional duties off-duty or for overtime, whether it is security for a clinic, bank, or public event that requires a visible security presence and the LEO agency is not responsible for maintaining an official presence. The agency benefits by renting officers out, the officer gets overtime, and the company needing security benefits by having a fully sworn LEO instead of just a security guard. Your encounter sounds just like that to me. This is only what I have been exposed to, so that may or may not be the case in your district.

I don't think I understand something from your posting though... were you carrying concealed or open? You said he saw that you were carrying.

If it was open carry, he shouldn't have even said anything to you unless he wanted to be conversational, address a legal infraction, or if he enforces some bank policy denying access to the building with a weapon (which he ruled out by stating he didn't know if the bank had a problem with it). You wouldn't have to justify your possession of a firearm to anyone for any reason.

If it was concealed, then I would understand if he asked you if you had a CCW (the issue of requiring you to produce it is another thing), but stating that he hoped you were a cop was completely inappropriate on his behalf. It does more than imply that he feels you shouldn't be carrying unless you're a cop, which is just wrong, statutorily, and being on the job, wearing his uniform, this is at the minimum misbehavior on duty. He can have his personal opinions off-duty. Also, have you considered that if you were carrying concealed, your firearm should have never been visible and the entire encounter may have never been more than saying "Hi" on the way through the doors, plus the bank tellers should never have known you were carrying from any of your visits? I'm not trying to be argumentative. Everyone making statements is essentially an armchair quarterback/lawyering and presenting consenting or opposing views of what you've stated. I'm saying that hindsight is 20/20 and we can all learn from things like this so we don't do the wrong thing in the future.

Regardless, I'm glad your encounter went well overall and no one had to be a jerk, and as you said you may very well have to meet this guy again in the future, so you want to be on favorable terms.

For the others chiming in on this, I'm in Nevada, and you don't need a CCW here to have your weapon in the car, visible or not (Link Removed) except in the Las Vegas area, where they enforce laws that can't statutorily exceed the State (the district laws are perpetually under review for repealing to comply with State law). I'm assuming your areas make a big deal about carrying in your car, then putting on when you exit your car?
 
Unwiredmedic,

I was open carry at the time which is normal for me. The bank has no policy against it and the tellers are extremely supportive of it. According to one of the tellers, the special duty officers usually get their panties in a bunch after I leave and they question the tellers as to whether they know me or not. The tellers tell them to calm down, as the bank would post if they didn't want guns in the building.

As for some of you other guys, I have NEVER been less than courteous to an LEO. But I know my rights and I will NOT roll over so that you liberals will feel better. I personally believe that a DUI checkpoint in an unreasonable search. I do not drink and would not appreciate being stopped for a check when I have not shown any cause to stop me, but I would not be obtuse to the LEO at the stop. At this point, I have not been stopped for that, but I'll let you know when it happens. And yes, I know the courts have upheld the ability to have checkpoints, so save your breath.

Anyhow, I am amazed at how easily some of you will exercise your right to carry, but you won't stand up for some of the other rights you have. They are ALL important. All of your rights need to be exercised VIGOROUSLY. Try it. It will keep your spine and my country strong.
 

+1000
Welcome to the indoctrination of America, my friend....it starts in Kindergarten.
 
I prefer to carry concealed (even though my state is an OC) for several reasons. LEO's will not pick me out of the general population as a potential threat. Bad guys will not pick me out of the patrons of the establishment they are robbing as the first target that could spoil their plans. That allows me to decide when to avoid, evade or engage.
 
bobblack72 said:
Bad guys will not pick me out of the patrons of the establishment they are robbing as the first target that could spoil their plans. That allows me to decide when to avoid, evade or engage.
Click to expand...

Hi! Welcome to USA Carry! As well as a hearty welcome here, some of us would like to extend to you the challenge that some of us have extended to many, many who have faithfully trod down the same road before you which, so far, has gone unanswered:

Please provide us with a documented example of Joe Citizen openly carrying a gun that was picked out and shot first during any robbery. While many of us understand this may be a personal reason for your choice of method of carry, and whatever reason you choose is up to you, but some of us like to point out that the "shoot me first" theory is only that - a theory. And that particular theory has never proven to be true in real life.

Some of us feel that the deterrent value of an openly carried firearm greatly outweighs the "shoot me first" possibility.
 
ccwaz said:
I fail to understand the fear of showing ID or permit when asked by legitimate authority. We are not as yet in an adversarial relationship with Law Enforcement in this country, are we? Unless you are part of the criminal element, that is...
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with an adversarial relationship with cops. Look at it this way:

You have the right to free speech, but only after a government official checks your ID and gives you the OK.

You have the right to peaceably assemble, but only after a government official checks your ID and gives you the OK.

You have the right to freely exercise your religion, but only after a government official checks your ID and gives you the OK.

Starting to get the idea? It's a matter of principle. It should never be a requirement to have your ID checked and get permission to exercise any constitutional right. Otherwise it's no longer a right.
 
don't need documentation

I was just giving my reasons for cc. My opinion and nothing more. If you jump on everything someone says that is clearly their own opinion and reasons for what they do, then you will have a very lonely time on this forum...
 
bobblack72 said:
If you jump on everything someone says that is clearly their own opinion and reasons for what they do, then you will have a very lonely time on this forum...
Click to expand...

Nah.... my "band of trolls" will keep me company! You will notice that I included this in my post: "While many of us understand this may be a personal reason for your choice of method of carry, and whatever reason you choose is up to you"
 
Axeanda45 said:
amsgator.... Is it ok in your state for a cop to stop you for breaking NO TRAFFIC LAWS (while driving a vehicle) just to see if you have a drivers license?
Click to expand...

amsgator said:
Just about. If the registered owner's DL is suspended it's PC to stop the vehicle.
Click to expand...

So how does LEO determine a DL is suspended BEFORE he stops the vehicle???
 

That is undoubtedly one of the silliest comparisons I have ever seen.

Saying that one should allow their rights to be violated with no reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is being committed is akin to starting "a movement to stop supporting our troops" is completely ridiculous.

I certainly hope you don't include your sheeplike philosophy in any self defense courses you might teach...stick to teaching responsible handling of firearms rather than teaching people they should not insist on their rights being observed.

As a retired LEO, I find it reprehensible that the irrational fears of some police officers have somehow become accepted reasons for violating the rights of the citizens they are sworn to protect.
 
mrjam2jab said:
So how does LEO determine a DL is suspended BEFORE he stops the vehicle???
Click to expand...

He did say "registered owner's DL"...which info one can get by running the license plate and then running the registered owner...all before the stop is made.
 
PaxMentis said:
He did say "registered owner's DL"...which info one can get by running the license plate and then running the registered owner...all before the stop is made.
Click to expand...

Which provides no evidence that the driver of the vehicle is driving on a suspended driver's license.

PaxMentis said:
As a retired LEO, I find it reprehensible that the irrational fears of some police officers have somehow become accepted reasons for violating the rights of the citizens they are sworn to protect.
Click to expand...

THANK YOU!
 

I'm not entirely sure this qualifies as "Joe Citizen", but here goes:

Hudson, NH: Two armed security guards in armored vehicle were shot as the criminals approached the vehicle. Both were dead on the spot, and then the criminals trained their weapons on the unarmed people at the nearby construction site.

As I recall, in NH armed security guards do not qualify as LEO, therefore are "Joe Citizen". These guards were certainly shot first simply because the criminals saw they were armed, therefore were the immediate threat.

Side note: the criminals were eventually apprehended, and admitted to killing the guards simply because they were armed and therefore the threat.
 

Thank you for trying...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Email