I read lots of news stories where the police arrest someone at gunpoint. Quite often those arrested complain that the police were pointing their weapons at them during the arrest. How is this OK?

If I were to point my gun at someone, unless in obvious self defense, I would be charged with assault with a deadly weapon. I've even read stories of people being charged with a felony for simply brandishing their licensed concealed handgun in a situation where they were being threatened (in Massachusetts).

If I were to point my gun at someone, I would expect him to shoot me. If you point your gun at someone, I would expect him to shoot [i]you[/i]. And I would expect a grand jury to recognize that the shooting was in self defense, and to refuse to indict.

Why do police get away with pointing their weapons at people who are not apparently armed? Yes, you should have your weapon at the ready, but pointed at the ground, not at the citizen.

I realize that a practiced quick draw artist can draw and shoot before you can wiggle your trigger finger, but I can't see that the quarter second it takes to bring your weapon to bear is worth breaking the second law of safe gun handling.

Educate me.

I'll bite.

Where I work, at least, there is a legal authority for it.

Texas Penal Code § 9.04. Threats as Justifiable Force

The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

There are also valid, tactical reasons for it as well. Basically, while we do not go around pointing weapons at folks ALL of the time, anytime we get something far out of the ordinary, officers here are trained to produce their sidearms. Some examples would be:
-Repeated furtive movements;
-Persons attempting to conceal themselves from police;
-Persons who are evading arrest/retention;
-Information that a suspect is armed;
-Articulable facts and circumstances that make it likely a suspect is armed;
-Arrests or detentions for serious offenses;
-"High-risk" traffic stops (stops of stolen vehicles, evading vehicles or vehicles involved in serious or violent offenses);
-Building clearance.

The reason we try to start out with our weapons out is actually rather simple. It is difficult to react faster than someone else can act. Statistically, bad guys get off the first shot in most gunfights, and hit with about 91% accuracy for their first shot. Conversely, police in the gunfights return fire at about 41% accuracy. That is because of the "startle response." Literally the "Oh crap! He's got a gun!" factor, that is usually the first response to a major threat. Training can mitigate this, but the best bet is to cut your reaction time down by having your weapon out. Realistically, in police shootings, we are looking at the bad guy deciding to shoot it out with the police, and the police officer taking a hit. Then the gunfight begins, and we are starting from an extreme disadvantage. Our rules are that if you THINK your weapon might need to be out, then it NEEDS to be in your HAND.

Note that Texas law, at least, makes no distinction about who can produce a weapon. The main difference between the authority of police and members of the public in this regard is that members of the public aren't going to patrolling dark alleys and such, looking for burglars. If you were confronting someone in your backyard or someone burglarizing your car, you would have the same authority to present a weapon, but you generally aren't going to have the authority to detain folks out in the rest of the world that police will have, so you are going to find fewer situations where you have the authority to present a weapon.

Natez,

Your reply sounds reasonable to me, but it doesn't quite answer the question I was attempting to ask.

I have no problem with anyone in an at risk situation, and that describes a LEO's job quite often, having a weapon in his hand. You'd be foolish not to. What bothers me is [i]pointing[/i] that weapon directly at a person who has not actually threatened, or appeared to be about to threaten, the use of deadly force.

This has never happenned to me. I've never given a LEO a reason to remove his weapon from his holster. But I've read stories of peaceful protestors having police guns pointed at them. This is especially prevalent in the stories I've read about SWAT raids.

To me, having a weapon, holstered or not, just says that you're an intelligent person rightly concerned with your own survival. Pointing that weapon at me means you intend to shoot me.

Absolutely!  If I am dealing with a situation where I deploy my weapon, it is because I do intend to shoot the person IF THEY FORCE ME TO.  In my academy it was drilled into our heads: Action will always beat reaction.  
When dealing with certain situations, having the weapon out BEFORE finding out that the person is armed and dangerous is a heck of a lot safer than having it out afterwards.  And it might just make them decide not to try and out draw you in the first place if they are armed.
Believe it or not, my department SOP is that if you respond to a burglary alarm and find an open door or window, you are supposed to wait for backup.  Once the officer(s) arrive they then are to deploy their weapons and search the building.  Believe it or not, failure to have your weapon deployed during a building search can result in a verbal or written reprimand.  Usually we find nothing, but it's better to be safe than sorry.  
What do you think about knives?  Are they as dangerous, or more dangerous, as guns?  
Let me ask you this and tell me what you think:  If a person holding a knife in a "non-threatening manner" is standing 20 feet away from someone with a holstered gun, should the person with the gun draw down on the person with the knife?  Ever hear of the "21 foot" rule?  

In my state the penal code say that peace officers can use what ever force is resonable and nessicary to effect and arrest. If the only force that is used to gain compliance in pointing a gun at the subject then this is a good thing for both the officer and the comunity.

Remember, the stories you are reading are from the standpoint of the person who was having the force used upon them. They know what they would or would not do. Their actions may have appeared quite different to the officers on scene. People have done some dumb shit things around me and made me VERY concerned for my safety without meaning to. Take these stories with a big grain of salt.

tripletap,

I've heard the knife scenario described before, though I have never heard of the "21 foot" rule. You shoot the knife-wielder first. He can be on you before you get off your second shot, and the other guy is likely to miss if he fires at you.

Everyone,

You still haven't gotten the gist of my question. I'm trying to make a distinction between having your weapon drawn, in your hand, ready to use, and pointing the muzzle at the potential perp. Is this a non-distinction in your minds? It's incredibly important in mine.

Someone holding a gun at the ready, but not pointed at me, is not a direct threat, though I will certainly pay attention. He might even be on my side. Anyone whose muzzle points at me or someone I care about must be immediately neutralized, uniform (possibly fake, eh?) or not.

[added a comma]

Ok, I think I know what you are getting at.  Whether or not I aim my weapon directly at someone depends on how I feel about them.  Specifically, whether or not I think they might be an immediate threat.  If I get the feeling that they might be an immediate threat then I will draw and point the weapon at them.  I'll worry about their hurt feelings later.... well, probably not :)
Some of the things I consider are if they: are known to be violent towards police, are known to carry  weapons, are not following my commands, if they are approaching me without being told/asked to do so and don't stop when I tell them to, if they keep reaching into their pockets after being told not to....
For instance, I was on a vehicle stop and a front passenger started to reach around under the seat.  I said "stop reaching under the seat."  He kept on.  I had my hand on my weapon and said "Show me your hands!"  He still didn't.  I drew down on him and he got the message.  After we extracted him from the car I found that he was trying to hide a beer.....but how could I have known that.  
The "21 foot" rule is that if someone is within 21 feet of you, there is a very strong chance that they can charge you and deliver a fatal stab wound before you can draw and fire your weapon.  If you stand your ground and can draw and fire before being hit with the knife they can still stab you as they die.  We did the drill with rubber knives and simunitions at the academy and it was a real eye opener.  

BillStClair,

I'm not really clear on your question. Maybe you could clearify it a bit more. From what I have read in response so far, the other guys have answered your question.

In response to your "SWAT raid stories", being part of a SWAT team. When we execute a warrant, he have received intellagence that there are possible threats at that location. Therefor, all individuals at the location are considered armed. As you know, most bad guys/girls carry weapons. So the low ready, does not seem to be practical in SWAT.

Also, I sure hope that you never have to be faced with a firearm being pointed at you, believe me it is not a good feeling. I have to disagree with the portion of your statement in reference to the "uniform or not" statement "Anyone whose muzzle points at me or someone I care about must be immediately neutralized, uniform (possibly fake, eh?) or not. If a LEO indentifys himself as Officer whether it be his uniform and/or verbal, I would highly recommend not trying to "neutralize" him because you will die. This not scare you but to make you aware of. There is a reason for our actions if we have to use our weapon.

If you are in fear of your life from a bad guy, I have no problem with you defending yourself even if you just point the weapon at him. It is considered "deady conduct" in the State of Texas, but we do have discretion.

I hope maybe I have helped answer your question.

srt205

I still haven't heard any reason for pointing a weapon in someones face....particularly those who are unarmed....

For those who are not LEO, I recommend going on a ride-a-long with a Police Dept. I think your eyes with open up to the real world and the dream world of the Liberals would change. I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT I AM NOT CALLING ANYONE IN HERE LIBERAL. It is apparrent that most everyone on this website are not. So, please do not be offended by my opinions.

Thanks,
srt205

The problem with this question is that you are asking us to give you a specific answer for every situation your mind can think up. This is not possible. The answers you have been given cover this issue very well. It is like asking us why some department used OC on some guy. You do not give specific information about the incident. We can not answer that.

You are locked into the idea that when a firearm is pointed at someone it means that the person holding it is going to shoot. This is flawed when talking about LEO use of firearms. We do not want to shoot anyone. We only want compliance and to stay safe. You are looking at the issue as if this was just some guy standing there with a gun pointed at you. LEO's are not just some guy. Now understand that I am not saying an LEO is better than you or anyone else. All I am saying is that LEO's by and large are not going to hurt you unless you try and hurt them. This is not true of most other persons pointing a gun at you.

Like I said above, pointing a gun at a person is force. We use only what force is needed to gain compliance.

If you are fishing for something, stop. Just ask.

Great reply, Luckystiff.

srt205

I still smell a double standard.

Whos to say that I intend to kill everyone I point my gun at.  I make the same threat of deadly force every time I aim as well.  If you tried to rob me or invaded my home, you would have a gun pointed at you.  What comes next is your decision.

Why should a cop be allowed to threaten deadly force and not a citizen?  Aren't cops just citizens like us too?

"Aren't cops just citizens like us too?"


Yes and no. Peace Officers hold a possition of trust within society. That is why no other county or city employee is put through such stringent a selection process as LEO's.

Lets look at what it take to get on as an LEO in most states. After you complete the academy you find an agency that is hiring. You start off taking a writen test. Then you go through an oral board. From your scors you are placed on a list of ranked applicants. If you scored high enough you are then put through a full, and I mean full, background check (Like they talk to your first grade teacher if she is still alive). Then you take a polygraph (lie detector) exam. Then you take a psyc. exam. This is usually about a 1500 question writen test that takes about 4 to 5 hours to complete. Then you come back a few days later and sit down with the Dr. or Dr.'s and have an interview. Then comes the medical exam. If you pass all this then you get to go through 14 weeks of progressivly harder field training. Then your on probation for some where between 12 and 18 months. While on probation you can be fired with out cause.

This process weeds out most people who have no business in law enforcement or who can not handle the responcibility of the office. This process is why society has given certen powers to LEO's. Like use of force. And is why people get so bent when LEO's do something that is not appropriate.

Society understands that sometimes it is in all of our best interest for LEO's to point guns at people. LEO's are given more leway than other members of our society in some areas and much less in others.

Look at the modivation for pointing a firearm at a person. For the LEO it is obvious, compliance and safety. For a non LEO, who knows? Now this changes for those out there that think all LEO's are out to get them. They do not see the position as a position of trust. They look at all LEO activity with suspicion and disdain. For those, no amount of discussion on this or any other subject is going to help. We, LEO's, can not justify anything we do to them. When we do they "what if" us till we get pissed. They then feel justified in their beliefs. Mental illness is and ugly thing.

Do a ride-a-long. Until then you have no real bases for your opinion. Besides don't you want to see how your tax dallers are spent? I can tell you this, things look a lot different from the inside of a patrol car.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your thougthful responses. I started this thread with what I thought was a simple question. Your initial answers taught me that it was not as simple as I thought, since I had made some unshared assumptions. Your answers have definitely educated me, as I requested. I'll explain a little about my assumptions, then share my conclusions.

My father taught me at a very young age, so young that I don't remember exactly how old I was, the first three out of four of [url=http://www.thefiringline.com/Misc/safetyrules.html]Jeff Cooper's Rules of Gun Safety[/url]. For some reason, he left "Be Sure of Your Target" for me to pick up myself.

I intended this discussion to center around Rule II: "Never Let the Muzzle Cover Anything You Are Not Willing to Destroy", except that I learned it more like "Never Let Your Muzzle Cover Anything You Do Not Intend To Destroy".

My father must have worked hard on me. These rules are stored somewhere in my lizard brain, as much a part of me as walking and talking, as impossible for me to ignore as a snowball in the face.

I hope that I will live to a ripe old age never finding it necessary to shoot anyone, but because of the way I learned the second rule, if you see more than the edge of the muzzle of my gun, you will know that I have already decided to shoot you and that a bullet or a load of shot is headed your way as soon as my sights are on your center of mass, round about half a second from now, or less.

I have learned today that the LEO's who responded in this thread have a significantly different take on the second rule. Seeing your muzzle means that you think that you might need to shoot, but you may not have yet decided. It's not time to shit my pants yet, as long as I'm careful not to startle you.

This is difficult for me to integrate. It goes against my training. Big time.

P.S.

Though I often respond angrily to perceived LEO mis-behavior as reported in the news, I realize that the lion's share of you guys are straight arrows worthy of my greatest respect. As Joe Friday said, "It's an endless, glamourless, thankless, job that's gotta be done." Thank you for doing it.


[edited to fix the link and the Joe Friday quote]

Whoa!--Nice posting arfcom LEOs--it's refreshing to see these viewpoints and facts stated as they were (ar15fan and doorkicker66 note the lack of antagonism and confrontation in these posts--this is how adults play nice[:D])

From a 20 yr veteran police officer & deputy: Under the laws of most states, incl NC, an officer has a legal right & DUTY to use whatever force is necessary to effect an arrest, defend himself or a third party from the use or APPARENT use of deadly force, or to prevent the escape of a person who presents a threat to the public unless immediately apprehended. Under NC law, a civilian may only use deadly force in defense of him/herself or a third person, and only then if the civilian or third person is blameless in creating the need for deadly force. Under NC law a civilian is REQUIRED to retreat rather than use deadly force if the retreat can be made safely. The only exception to the retreat rule is in one's own home/place of residence. An officer is under no duty to retreat, and is entitled, if not required, to stand his/her ground and use whatever level of force, up to & including deadly force, is required to perform the duties of his/her office. Because of this rule, so long as an officer is performing a legitimate duty of office, he/she is exempted from most of the rules governing use of deadly force which apply to civilians, including the charges involved in Assault By Pointing a Firearm.

If I may add to LuckyStiff's response: It is only after an officer goes through the lengthy background/testing/training process he describes so well that he is entrusted by his state to carry a weapon and use deadly force if necessary to carry out his duties. I know of no state that authorizes civilians to use deadly force other than in defense of themselves, a third person, or possibly in extremis, the defense of their home rather than their person.
The vast majority of civilians do not clearly understand rules governing their own conduct in use of deadly force, much less the rules that sworn officers operate under. For that reason, officers do operate under a different set of rules, not because they are better than civilians, but because they have been thoroughly trained not only in the use of deadly force, but also in the rules governing when they may legally use deadly force. Most officers are extremely reluctant to employ deadly force, even when threatened, and as a result, many officers are killed or injured because they react rather than initiate the action. Any officer with a few years experience can tell stories of confronting armed suspects without having to use deadly force. In my own case, in the last four years I have been in a position to legally employ deadly force at least eight times. Fortunately, none of the situations forced me to do so. But the point is that I would have been legally blameless in any of the cases had I done so. Officers, in my experience, exercise incredible self-restraint in the use of deadly force, because of their realization of the awesome responsibility that entails.

I will add a note. While we do point weapons at people, quite often sometimes, there are some additional consideration that make it not quite tactically sound (depending on how you do it).

Your sights and muzzle need to be low on a potential threat until you decide to shoot. How low depends on the distance, but generally waist level or just a bit below. The rationale is that you need to be able to see the hands so that you can be constantly making you shoot/don't shoot/de-escalate decisions. This is a drill at SMG/carbine school; no rounds, sights low on target, and advance. Your muzzle should get lower and lower as you get closer to the target, so that you can keep it clear of your sights.

Back to the matter of pointing weapons at people. We do it under certain circumstances because the threat level is unknown, until proven otherwise, and safety forces us to assume that it is high, or the threat level is known to be high. Use of force laws allow us, and, as I pointed out, our fellow citizens, to do this. But as LE, we are far more likely to encounter circumstances where we have those threats, and find situations where we have arrest or detention authority that our fellow citizens do not.

We teach Cooper's rules, and do not consider pointing weapons at people during some stops or situations to be rule violations, because we are willing to destroy what our muzzle covers, if the need arises and we have a legal reason to do so.

When I worked the streets, I might go a week without pointing a weapon, and then do it several times in a shift. As one of my supervisors said, "Pointing guns at people is unfortunately a routine part of police work." It can be abused or improper at times, but there are many circumstances where it is correct.

I have also noted a "ripple effect;" when one officer detects something that pegs his threat meter and his weapon comes out, if the other officers he works with have a good team relationship, everyne else instantly reacts to the thumbreak sound and hollow pop of the sidearm coming out, and does the same. To an extent, it is an experience thing, and it can't be taught or explained; it has to experienced to have full impact.

I'm not going to get into a debate with you over this but, look up active topics [u]officer down[/u] Many people want to question how the police do there job.  Until you walk a mile n there foot steps maybe you should cut them some slack.  What appears to the ordinary person ine a non threatening contact, may in fact be life threatening. No one but that officer at that time knows what he sees and feels and knows.  It's easy to arm chair quarterback. Unless your in the game you don't know how it feels.  And to quote another police training officer..."NO matter what happens tonight I WILL go home to kiss my children good night!". You hit on the main point in your first statements. "I've never given on officer a reason" Normal law abiding citizens don't give officers a reason and law abiding officers don't draw and point there guns at someone for no reason. So are you saying you believe that the officer was not a law abiding officer or was the perp possibly not a law abiding person. Your decision seems to be against the officer.  I think people see what they are told to see or want to see. You see a cup half full I see it half empty.  Without being in the situation you can't make the call.
I have stood next to armed citizens, pulled them over carrying firearms illegally(we have no concealed carry in my state) but because they where law abiding citizens and they had valid reasons to carry at that time, I never pointed a gun at them and we where a team.  There are others on my streets that yes if I had a confrontation with them I would draw and maybe point my firearm at them.  But again that's because I know these players in my game.  I don't consider and armed citizen to be a threat. I consider a citizen or armed citizen a teammate.  I consider a potential armed criminal a threat.  Time and experience helps us know the difference and god willing we won't make mistakes on either side. see Officer down and this conversation seems stupid

I, for one, am glad this question was asked. And I am very happy that for the most part this discussion has not deteriorated into a pissing contest or troll fest. I welcome legit questions from non LEO’s. I have nothing to hide and believe that if the general population understands what I do and what my motivations and training are they will be more likely to assist me and make my community a better place.

A little understanding and education goes a long way.

There IS a double standard.  We are responsible for arresting bad guys- non LEO's are not.  The law allows us to do things you cannot do in order to perform our lawful duties.  Many people seem to have trouble with this concept, but it's actually very simple.  While we're on the job, we are NOT 'just another citizen'.  Not better, mind you, just have a different set of responsibilites and the authority to do things other citizens are not expected to do in order to fulfill those responsibilities.

There have been some very good answers posted here, but the question itself bespeaks a tremendous ignorance about what the job of police officers is, not to mention the dynamics of deadly force encounters.  Bill, if your local law enforcement agency has anything like a 'citizens police academy', I strongly recommend that you attend.

Excuse me sir... but I don't know if you have a weapon or not but to keep from hurting your feelings I'm not going to be proactive and draw my weapon. So if you have something go ahead and use it because no matter how good I am, there's no way in hell I can outdraw a trigger squeeze......

It's one of those things that there's no correct answer to. It depends on many things like body language from the subject; is he cornered? what offense is he being arrested for? There's too many variables to give a direct answer.

IT'S A COP THING! I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO UNDERSTAND!

Well, if we don't point our guns at civilians, then who do we point them at? :)

As we hunted for the DC sniper, every whitebox truck driving person was taken out of the car at gun point.  We do not practice the "quick draw" in the academy. And as some have already stated "action" is faster than "reaction".  Guns pointed at a "suspect" , is usually generated from "citizen's complaint" that they were assaulted, threatend or someone observed someone with a gun looking bulge etc.  We dont just point a gun at anyone for no reason.  Once we make sure and check that the person is not a threat or armed, then the guns go in the holster.  For those who don't feel like they understand, go through a citizens academy or a ride along.  To actually walk in our shoes will open your eyes and mind.  We all go home safe and make sure our partners go home safe.  You come down to DC on May 13 to Police Week and you read all the names on the wall.  Some of those LEOs were killed by action over reaction.  And during the sniper incident, we had alot of bogus calls from citizens, but we had to respond and check everyone out.

Our training these days extends that to the 30-foot rule.  Evidently a newer study that I'm not that familiar with.  In any event, a person can cover a LOT of ground in less time than it takes to react to it.

This is the begining of Mr. St Clairs dead horse, the Oath vs. Law has been locked out, but I found an article I had in my drawer which I think explains in terms Mr. St Clair might understand.  The article appeared in American Handgunner and was written and submitted by Clint Smith, the owner and chief instructor at Thunder Ranch in TX.  



This is only part of an excellent article.  Hope this makes it easier for some to understand.

My rules of being a cop:

Rule 1.  I go home every night.

Rule 2.  I do what I must to follow Rule 1

Rule 3.  I don't care what you think about what I do to follow Rule 2.

Yes police officers point guns at your head.
Yes it makes me uncomfortable each time.
Learn to deal with it!
I carry legally on a daily basis.
I get pulled over once in a while.
Along with my licence goes my carry permit to the officer and the verbal statement that I am concealing a loaded firearm.
6 outa' 6 times I have done this, officer has backpedalled from my door drawn his weapon and pointed it, finger on the trigger, at my head.
NO I have not been shot YET, but I do not know of any other better way to inform an officer during a traffic stop of the fact that I am ARMED.
No I will not stop informing officer that I am armed until asked first. I have a problem with surprising cops with a gun, that can really be dangerous and usually pisses them off. I prefer to be up front with them from the very begining.
We live in a crappy world and have to deal with all sorts of really shitty stuff going on around us.


Maybe this rant doesn't belong in this thread but I stuck it here anyway 'cause you officers put time into your responses and some of us appreciate the job you do, even though we may not like the way you have to go about it.

Dang. Six times? I have never done this to a licensed concealed carrier on normal traffic stop. I figure they are the "good guys" and while I do go with a slightly higher sense of caution, I have never felt it necessary to point a weapon at a traffic violator who has presented their CHL and said they were carrying. In fact, my last encounter with a CHL holder was so positive, that he asked me to speak at his Rotary club meeting about concealed handgun licenses.

Natez,

Thanks for a voice of reason from the LEO perspective.

whisper300,

I will never "get used to" any cop pointing a gun at me unless he has probable cause to believe I have committed a real crime and I do not cooperate with his arrest attempt, or I have given him good reason to believe that I am about to attack him.

From my reading of your description of your six traffic stops, had that happenned to me, I would have done everything in my (legal) power to bring each of those cops before a grand jury to consider indictment for the felony of assault with a deadly weapon.

Nice post, good work X2 by the way.

We keep hearing about the "higher standard" that LEO's are supposed to live up to. This is one of the few examples of where the "higher standard" allows the police to do something that most people wouldn't be allowed to do.

Plus there is a, reasonable, societal expectation that police will seek out, and lawfully arrest wrong doers. I think in return for accepting that duty, LEO's also have certian "privileges" that come with that responsibility.

In WI deadly force is legally described 2 different ways. 1) that force that is likely to cause great bodily harm or death. For LEO's 2) That force that is likely to cause death.

Why the distinction? I think it is the use of the police baton. If a trained police officer is using a baton properly, it is deadly force, unless you use definition #2.

Yes the "gun safety" rules go out the window. But then again, the idea is that the officer IS ready to shoot at what they have targeted.

As far as the fast draw, reaction is always slower than action. If you wait until you are SURE that a person is trying to shoot you, you will have been shot before you realize what the other person was trying to do.

It's a dicey situation, and the police should have a clear, articulable, reasonable, threat that caused them to believe pointing guns at other people was a legally justified course of action.


Sorry if I ramble.

Do you tell them you have a CHL first? Order is important in that statement.

Finger on the trigger is WRONG FYI.

I have come across a few "armed" people, hunters, either in "the field" or driving to/from the hunt. I would never think of drawing down on them. It's a circumstance based thing, if you know what I mean.

If I am aware that they have a gun, and try to approach so that I don't startle them, or set up an accidental "sweep". On traffic stops I just ask them not to reach for the weapon.

Again it might be different, depending on the reason for contact or the bahavior of the person contacted.

Can't say about CHL, WI doesn't have it, sorry.

To all that commented.
First let me say that the Six times figure is over the past 12 years or so. Second this exact situation has happened to me in Nassau county NY, and Brooklyn (yes I had a NYC carry permit between 1991 and 1993), West warwick and Kingston RI and once so far in Fredericksburg Va and on I-95 by a VA state trooper. (Bad Nick Bad slow down and check your tail-lights more often).
I always present my permit along with my drivers license and clearly state that I am carrying a loaded gun, first and foremost. My vehicle has usually been on the shoulder with hazard lights flashing and ignition off, during stops. I try to smile, make slow and exagerated movements when reaching for my wallet and have always been polite  to the point that it may seem condencending to some, or so I have been told.
I am not making this stuff up guys! I have been greated with a loaded gun to the head from a distance of 2 to 4 feet by each representative officer on all six occasions. Each time I have been asked to exit my vehicle a place my hands on the hood of my car while the officer or his partner has frisked me. Each and every single time I have been asked if there were more guns in the vehicle and I allowed officers to search my vehicle. Officers have ALWAYS been polite but very Firm with me. I am a big boy 5'10" 220-240, I have my hair cut in a Flat top and usually have facial hair. I have been told that my features "look Aggresive", yet I am a sweet and polite guy [:D]
I do not argue why I was pulled over, but rather admit to my wrongdoing (be man enough to admit when you are in the wrong). I have no warrents or any other such things and I have never been "in trouble" with the law. Yes I get frustrated with my treatment and would much rather have  less "exciting" encounters with police officers, but I do not know what if anything I am doing wrong with my actions or if it has just been my "luck" to have been pulled over by these particularly "excitable" officers. I have never had a discussion or shared other pleasantries during my traffic stops with said officers. Rather they have verified my ID, written up my tickets ( or given me a verbal warning), handed me back my now unloaded weapon, and sent me on my way.  I hear stories about guys getting pulled over and having pleasant conversations and such with officers, but that simply has NEVER been MY experience.
I truly am interested in hearing about what if anything I should do diferently. No I am not interested in suing anyone. My driving habits are SAFE, I just tend to travel over the posted speed limit once in a while, and I get caught. Also sometimes I do not notice burnt out tailights until they are brought to my attention(aka. trafic stop). I am in no way "Bashing" the officers involved in my particular traffic stops or their actions. We all made it out of each of my situations SAFELY.
No I do not agree with pointing a gun at a person that has just identified themselves as being legaly armed, BUT these have been MY particular experiences!

Whisper, I'm along with Natez on this one.  When I've been informed that the person was CCW, I asked them were it was and to keep their hands on the steering wheel or were I could see them.  Everything went smooth.

StClair, "why do police get away with pointing their weapons at people who are not apparently armed?"  "Apparently" is the key word.  If conditions and circumstances dictate (ie I have reasonable suspicion to believe the person is armed and is a threat), I will have my weapon pointed at the person as I do not intend to shoot the ground.  I do not make it a habit of pointing my weapon at a non threatening person.  I can only speak for what I've been involved in.

Whisper, man I do not know what to say. My county has A LOT of CCW holders and I have stopped several of them during my career. I have never felt that is was necessary to draw down on any of them. The only CCW holder that I seized the CCW from was a guy who got into a domestic with his crazy GF and thought it was okay to shoot out her tires so she could not leave until the we got there. That was a very poor decision considering he was in a residential area at 4 in the afternoon with kids around.

All I can offer you is that in my area this is not SOP and would get the officer taken aside and talked to by a Sgt if they found out about it. CCW holders are seen as persons who are more trust worthy that the average joe. CCW holders here have to go through a pretty thorough background and get signed off by the Sheriff. If this type of thing happens in the future, and I hope it does not, make a complaint to the officer’s supervisor. You may have just had a rooky magnet stuck to you. New guys who do not come from gun owning families experience a culture shock when they interact with gun owners.

Whisper300,
You mentioned that one of the times was in Fredericksburg?  I am curious about this, since it's my stompin grounds.  Did it happen in the city or nearby and whan was it?  Was it a trooper, deputy or police officer?

Trippletap, Funny that you mention the Fredericksburg incident. This one just happened in early November and it involved a Federal parks officer. First off I want to say thank you to that officer for not arresting me or taking away my handgun, as he had every right to do so.
I live off of battlefield park in Fredericksburg, actually we just built this house. Anyway I did not know that those no rifle signs at the entrance to federal parks meant no guns whatsoever, I thought they meant NO Hunting. Being new to Virginia, I have never before had any experience with Federal parks, also I was unaware of all the laws of Virginia pertaing to CCW's. I was told no churches or places that served alcohol= no gun. Anyway my ignorance of the law does not excuse me, on to the story.
So I am going thru Fredybrg park from Lafayette onto Lansdown doing 35mph when woop woop park ranger pulls me over. I pull over, shut off ignition and sit quietly. Officer comes   up to my window and asks for my license and reggi. I hand him license and CCW Permit and tell him I have a loaded gun in glove compartment, which is where my reggi is. He nods ok and says reggi please. I figure ok, so I procede to open glove and put handgun on passengers side seat in order to retrieve regi sitting underneath it. Oh man what a sight, poor guy says "WHAT THE HELL IS THAT????" ( while back-pedalling from drivers side door and frantically attmpting to draw his service weapon)I instantly lock my hands on the steering wheel and did not make a move. I respond to the officer "This is the loaded gun I just told you I had in my glove box when I handed you my licence and CCW permit, my registration is in the glove box too"
Now while pointing a semi auto at my head from several feet away from my drivers side door he proceeds to instuct me on how to exit my vehicle and put my hands on the hood of my vehicle. I complied with all his requests, allowed him to search my vehicle, apologized for having a gun with me in a prohibited location and apologized for speeding in the park. He noticed my badge, ( I am a federal officer but am not issued a weapon) calmed down a bit, holstered his gun, and after providing me with a written warning allowed me to pull off federal property and then returned my weapon to me. That was my most recent incident, here in VA. Officer was a pretty nice guy to me that day, i appreciated that.

Gee [u]reading stories about swat raids[/u], the MEDIA will write what they want to sell stories, they never worry about being exact on both accounts.  



Mr. St Clair it just seems you have a personal issues you need to deal with.  If the officer is performing his duties and points his gun at you then I suggest you comply.  Because when you don't you make us more suspicous.  You started this discussion by being upset about officers pointing guns at civilians on traffic stops then you go off on another tagent about why can't just draw really fast from the holster? As Mr. TOAD stated perfectly all we need is reasonable suspicion that the person is a threat. (ie. dispatched description, officer lookout)  You can bitch and moan all you want , but bottom line is officer safety.  I and every cop in here WILL go home safe.  And don't waste our tax money with some Baloney lawsuit crap.  In each of those cases the officers had every right.  The person told the officer they had a gun and if those officers felt they need to point the gun at him until everything was verified valid, then they are well within their legal rights.  Your claim to be pro police, but your words and mind set makes me think different.  You need to go on a ride along in NYC, Baltimore City, or Washington DC.

It's amazing to me how difficult it is to get you guys to hear what I believe I plainly say.

I didn't say anything about a lawsuit. I was talking about assault with a deadly weapon. If convicted, this would mean prison time, loss of right to vote, loss of right to possess firearms, the whole deal.

whisper300's more detailed story about one of the traffic stops made it clear that his first description was incomplete. Though he told the park cop that he had a loaded gun, my bet is that the guy didn't hear him, hence was surprised when he actually saw it on the seat. Why that caused him to freak out I don't know. If my gun is on the seat, it likely means that I don't plan to shoot you. Had that been my intention, you would be on the ground in a pool of your own blood watching my car drive away.

The fact that these stories are often incomplete is the reason we have courts of law. So that the whole story will come out.

I don't know about Baltimore, but NYC and DC are places where it is virtually impossible for a normal, law-abiding citizen to legally carry a self-defense firearm. Hence, the bad guys have free reign. This makes a LEO's job in those cities incredibly more difficult than it would be without this blatant violation of the residents' rights.

I am not pro-LEO. I am pro- peace officer. If you are responding to a citizen complaint about the initiation of force against person or property, or if you are out walking a beat, getting to know and providing security for the people who live in the neighborhood, I support you. If you're out there soliciting criminal activity or enforcing any of the myriad of laws concerning activity between consenting adults, [i]you[/i] are the criminal.

I have never proposed that LEOs should attempt to outdraw anyone. I talked about that only to make a point that you need to have [i]your[/i] gun in your hand if you might need to use it, because the perp can draw and shoot before you can react.

I also distinguish holding your weapon in your hand, ready to bring it on target, from actually pointing it at someone who you only "feel" may be a threat. Somehow, none of the LEOs on this board think there is any difference. You seem to think that once you are holding your weapon in your hand, you can point it at anyone you think might need shooting. You don't draw except to point.

As far as I'm concerned, once you point your weapon at someone, you are threatening him with lethal force, and he is then justified to stop you, using any force at his disposal. Yes, I would advise him to give up, since at that point you have a large tactical advantage, but he has as much right as you do to go home today, unless you have probable cause to arrest him.

The point I've been trying to make in all of this is that unless you are already justified in shooting someone, you have no business in pointing your weapon at him. You will [i]often[/i] be justified in removing your weapon from its holster, and you would be a fool not to. But you guys seem to make no distinction between drawing and pointing, whereas I make no distinction between pointing and shooting.

This is why most places don't let Cops carry 1911's.  I have no problem with a Double action weapon pointed at me by a cop. Twice so far, one traffic stop when I had a legal pistol in view, once drunk in Baltimore when they must of been lookin for some VERY BAD guys.  Me and three hammered friends were stumbling down the sidewalk when a police car jumps the curb and hits a building at about 5 MPH cutting us off.  Big cop proceeds to have us assume the position and screams questions we don't know the answers too while he frisks each of us with his .38 against our heads.  We were laughing like drunkin idiots the whole time.  Tons of police cars around and the police helicoptor was right over us.  I'm sure the they were looking for a dangerous guy, and we had no complaints about what happened.  Lucky we didnt get collered for public intoxication.  

The above St.Clair statement seems to sound contradicting, hmmmmmm Peace Officer and Law Enforcement Officer are one in the same.













Sir we know there is a difference based upon our Police Training and experience which you dont have...



The key phrase is underlined.  You don't want to hear the facts, because your still gonna stick with what you believe.  You need to go and take some Police Courses at your local college.  You are going on your beliefs and what you are reading.  Education is the key, go educate yourself on Policing.



You have no business in here contradicting yourself.

Everyone here is making some good points, sorry I am entering the game late.  I am also a LEO, and something they taught me in the academy was a acronym called PEDA.  This stands for perceive, evalute, decide and react.  It takes the average trained LEO about 3/4 of a second to go throught the peda process.  So 3/4 of a second have gone by,now they LEO is acting, which even at low ready takes approx 1/2 second after deciding to shoot to ge the first shot off.  It was proven over and over again that I can take a gun from my side, get it on target and get 2-3 shots off in that first 1 1/4 second.  So I have shot at the officer 2-3 times before he can get the first shot off.  What the reasoning behind pointing your gun at them is that maybe you can reduce that 1/2 second time it takes to get that first shot off, therefore limiting the number of shots coming at you.  Understand the pointing of a firearm at you by an trained LEO is not the same as a civilian who is ccw and has gone through 16 or so hours of handgun training.  My department goes through 120 hours in the academy, and we have 40 hours per year, broken up into 4 shooting sessions in order to ensure that we keep our finger of the trigger and outside the trigger guard until ready to shoot. Understand in the LEO community, a tie in a gunfight is not a good thinig.  Action will ALWAYS beat reaction.  We are just trying to even the odds the best we can

P.S.  I am very impressed that this has been a very polite so to speak conversation.  Good ideas, good view points.  If you dont agree with mine, thats is ok, this is America and we are entitled to our opinions.  This just happens to be mine.


{-=(_)=-]

BOOMER well said, but the guy who started this discussion can't take in to his head what we are telling him.  I'm a firearms instructor for our dept, and during the academy during firearms if your seen with your finger on the trigger, you get to do 100 push ups.  Let me tell you, in most cases it gets corrected.  We also train with simunitions in no shoot and shoot scenarios.  I have shot many a rookie and veteran during in-service training, because action is faster than reacation.  However this guy, just has a personal problem with a cop pointing a handgun at him.  Because he feels the cop needs "probable cause" to point the gun at him.  Its a moot point cause he is still sticking with what he wants to believe.  He doesn't care about what we are saying to him, based upon our training and experience.

 It's like you guys are speaking two different languages. Bill refers to "pointing guns at people's heads, finger on trigger".... which you guys infer to be the same as "pulling your gun"...  

 I see a world of difference between "low-ready", and pointing a pistol at someone's head, whom you have not yet determined to be a threat.

 I cringed as I saw repeated images of cops here in the DC area pulling people out of white vans while pointing M4 carbines or pistols at them with FINGERS ON THE TRIGGER... even saw a couple instances of officers allowing their muzzles to cover their partners. I guess if I worked with folks who were that sloppy about their gun-handling, I would be A LITTLE JUMPY, TOO.

 Just my .02

Bill is talking about being quick on the draw and talks about a person can be fast enough to out draw a person who already has a gun out.  YOU NEED TO GO BACK AND READ, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU SKIMMED AND MISSED ALOT OF THE LAST POSTS.




Again go back and re-read the past postings.  Police are going to be sure they have the advantage IF there is a threat.  However once it is determined that there is no threat, the weapon is secured.



I guess you had alot of time on your hands to actually go out in the middle of all the chaos during the sniper incident and watch with a pair of binoculars to see which cops had their fingers on the trigger.  I guess you were standing directly behind the officer to see where his weapon was pointed and you were not looking from and angle and were able to determine that he was muzzling another officer?  Wow you must have eagle like vision.  I am tired of civilians who receive some type of shooting training, and then come on to this message board and monday morning quarterback us on how we should do our jobs.  Join the Police Dept yourself and you can go through the Police Academy and go through over 80+ hours of firearms instruction.  Then you might get a jist of what it is about.