Quoted:

Civprod, I agree with BlackFox that, even if these cops must respond to the call, and even if they must come with guns drawn, as soon as they see the person has a gun IN A HOLSTER they could probably holster their weapons.  If they see that a guy has a holstered gun, they are also free to observe him from a distance.

There's absolutely no need to detain him, because there is no idication he is doing anything wrong.

The standard is not that they are free to detain anyone until they figure out they are OBEYING the law.

The standard is that they may not detain anyone until they have reasonable suspicion that they are BREAKING the law.

The person who made the 911 call, when identified, should be told that simply seeing a person with a gun is not justification to make a 911 call and, the next time he does so, it is HE who will be getting cuffed and fingerprinted.  Just like if someone tells the cops I am beating my roommate senseless, and they break down my door and find us watching TV, they are going to go after the person who made the call.  And they are going to apologize to me.  Instead of telling me I had better not watch TV anymore or they'll continue to break down my door for beating up my roommate.

Doesn't THAT solve all these problems better than continuing to point guns at a law-abiding person?

Quoted: How do you reconcile this with one of our own who was arrested for confronting a car thief in his front yard at 2 a.m. with a handgun in his hand?  If memory serves, you and trio were pretty clear he had screwed up and got off easy, and he didn't point it at anyone.

I honestly do not remember this post.  He would have really screwed up if he used deadly force to protect his property because that is not allowed.  I am going to have to go back and try to find it.  At this time, I have no attempt at reconciliation.

Please understand - I am not really interested in debating the finer points of the VA code - I believe I understand them.  I have a fundamental issue for a citizen being arrested for something that is apparently expected of an LEO under similar circumstances.  LEOs should not be able to draw and point a loaded weapon at someone who has not demonstrated a viable threat to anyone.  Their safety is no more important than the (last time I checked - presumed innocent) person whose life now rests on 8 lbs of pressure on a trigger.   I will be arrested (rightfully so) for pointing a loaded gun at someone unless I can demonstrate my life (or the life of an innocent) was in immediate danger.  Why is this standard any different for an LEO?   I understand "The police had no idea that the person was obeying the law at the time they responded."  I fail to see how that's different than any other time they look someone in the eyes.  Should every citizen be treated as a threat until proven otherwise?  Isn't this a little contrary to the spirit of our Country?  I won't even get started on the "us-versus-them" attitude this fosters....

This is a little different of a situation then say a traffic stop since the dispatcher had already informed the officers that the man has a gun.  I think that the knowledge that this individual has a gun changes things for the police.  Also, it is difficult to go back and examine the correctness of their actions without knowing what the call was.  If the security guard called and said that there was a potential armed robbery (unlikely but possible) then that would mean that there really isn't time for observation because of the nature of the call and the gun is probably being used in a threatening manner.

I understand what you mean when you say that the police should be held to the same standards as everyone else in terms of when they can draw and point their weapons, but the truth of the matter is that they are not, largely because of their role.

I beg to differ.  A man standing on the street corner with a sidearm in a holster IS obeying the law.  I understand your point, but don't see any reason for their actions - any more than someone holding a sign on a street corner or walking down the sidewalk.   This is very similar to most other OC "incidents."  If a 911 call is made, the operator could dig just a little deeper.  "Is his firearm in a holster or case?"  "Has he threatened anyone?"  "Has the individual done anything (besides the fact he has a firearm in a holster) that we should be aware of?"  If I was responding to that scene, I would find that information immensely valuable.   Is your suggestion that any time an LEO encounters an armed individual they drop them at gunpoint, cuff them and run their numbers?  Is it the fact there was a citizen complaint?  What if there is a citizen complaint for a guy walking down the sidewalk (not apparently armed)?  Do they resond the same way?  What in this instance justified drawn and pointed weapons, cuffs, background checks and disarmament?

I am not suggesting that everytime a LEO encounter an armed individual that they drop them at gunpoint.  I think that is where the 911 call comes in, I would think that there was probably something more in the call then we know about.  If for no other reason, the fact that the police did not respond with their guns drawn the second time seems (at least to me) to suggest that it is not departmental policy or training to always respond with drawn weapons.

As far as the cuffing and everything goes, this may be unnecessary but it is allowable.  This is especially true in the first instance where he still had his gun on him the entire time.  It is possible that they could have removed his gun, but they chose not to do so for whatever reason.  Also (and I don't know why they did not do this), the police never performed a frisk of him, so they did not know whether or not he had any other weapons on him so the cuffs were for officer safety.  As I said, there are otherways that they could have handled it, but the actions they took were not wrong.

As far as the running his name, it was necessary to make sure that he wasn't doing anything wrong by possessing the firearm or that he did not have any warrants against him.

It is true that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, but this standard is really only in a court of law.  

Threats?  I'd call this a threat - 'he advised me that if I came back, they would put me in handcuffs, and run my "papers"again.'  Being dropped down at gunpoint, placed in cuffs, searched and having background checks run in a public place for doing nothing wrong sure seems like a threat to me.  It sounds like lot like "if you don't respect my authority, I'm going to make your life miserable" - particularly since it had already been determined that he was doing NOTHING wrong!!

Again, I believe that the checks and everything are necessary to ensure that the individual is not doing anything wrong so they are a part of the investigation.  I also believe that this sort of investigation can be warranted by a complaint about a man with a gun (although I cannot say for sure without knowing they were told).

As far as prior determinations that the guy had not done anything wrong, I don't think that this would necessarily mean that they don't have to perform the checks again.  One reason is that things change and people can get charges or warrants on them over time.  While it is unlikely in the short time frame mentioned in this story, there is no way to be sure and the officers were just being thorough.  Also, as I have already stated, the officers the second time may not have been away that it had been determined in the first call that he was not doing anything wrong.  It might be different officers that day.  The officers may not have remembered him.  There is no way to guarantee that the officers the second day knew about everything that happened the first time.  In fact, chances are the officers the second day had no idea what happened the first time.

Quoted: Unless the police are free to just ignore calls, they would respond to each call. Is it a threat because they are saying that they will continue to do their jobs? Come on, civprod - you were doing okay until there.  You and I both know there's a big gap between not responding and showing up with weapons drawn.  I deal with LEOs while armed (frequently openly) at least twice a week.  None of them feel obligated to randomly toss me on the ground and slap cuffs on.

As a point of clarification, I do not believe that he was ever thrown to the ground.  I do believe that they asked him to put his hands on the wall that first time, but that is dramatically different in terms of the force that they exercised.  And again, asking him to put his hands on the wall can fall under the justification of officer safety.

Also, this statement was made during the second encounter between this individual and the police.  In this encounter, the officers did not show up with their weapons drawn.  So in this case, I saw the statement as basically saying that they will have to continue to respond to these types of calls and they have to follow procedure each time.

Quoted: I don't see anything suggesting that the officers tried to tell him that open carry was illegal. They did ask why he was doing it, but they didn't say that it was illegal. I mean that there is nothing wrong with making sure that he does not have an outstanding warrants, is not prohibited from owning or possessing a gun, etc. So, the officers knew OC was legal, they saw the man doing nothing besides OC'ing.  Why the hell did they have to do anything?  What justification do they have for taking him into custody (not Terry stop - full out handcuffs)?

I believe that this was a Terry stop and not a full out arrest.  With a Terry stop, it is possible for the police to briefly detain someone for the purposes of conducting an investigation if they had reason to believe that the person had or was about to commit a crime.  The call to dispatch probably gives the officers enough justification to allow a Terry Stop and allow a temporary seizure of the individual for investigation.  Once the investigation was concluded and everything was found to be legal, he was free to go on his way.

Also, although this may not be the best place for it, I do feel the need to mention that there is no indication of how long these events actually lasted.

Quoted: I think that making an ass out of yourself while open carrying a gun is going to get the right taken away. Again - who said anything about making an ass of yourself?  I hope you're not calling this guy an ass for doing his thing (it's not like he was carrying a sign or yelling at people).   You're painting some broad strokes of those that OC.  If a professionally-dressed clean cut guy going about his business (not acting twitchy or angry) "makes the general public feel threatened" then the person OC'ing didn't make them feel anything.  Nothing we can do would change their minds.

I was not talking about this person in particular (although the hat was kind of dumb and probably doesn't help).  I agree that a majority of people who see someone carrying openly probably will not necessarily feel threatened (although they may feel a bit uncomfortable).  However, when open carrying I feel that it is important to at least be mindful of the reactions of others and not go out of your way to make others feel uncomfortable.  The people that I call asses are the ones that open carry because they can and essentially respond that way whenever they are questioned about it without anything further, and the people who refuse to cooperate with the police when open carrying.  In general, I do think that there is more to be gained in cooperating with the police when open carrying and trying to educate others will be alot more helpful and help more people understand our position.

Uh, because if nobody knows you're carrying a firearm you haven't done anything to improve the impression of gun owners?  By the way, the constant mantra of a "responsible gun owner" is starting to sound a lot like "commone sense gun control" - it doesn't really mean anything, but sounds good and makes the contrary point of view seem "irresponsible."

I meant this comment about more than open carry.  I meant this more with general gun ownership more than specifically while carrying guns.  Like it or not, most of the portrayals of gun owners that are on the news and on TV are not ideal gun owners and don't actually represent a majority of gun owners and I think that it is important for people to realize that all people who own guns do not want to go out there and shoot people, rob people, etc.

Quoted: unless you consider it harrasment for the police to investigate any call that they receive. civprod - you may have some good points, but this kind of stuff is just plain silly.  Come on, man - you're better than this.  All the soundbites about officer safety, just doing their jobs, responsibile gun owners coupled with the demonization of the other viewpoint (you want them to ignore calls, not do their job, somebody's acting like an ass, horrible threats, etc.) makes you appear disengenuous.

The officer safety concerns are valid concerns and as such, police officers are given great latitudes by the courts to ensure their own safety while performing their job.  There are limits on these powers, but I do not believe that any limits are crossed in this case.  I am not trying to use these as just soundbites.

And I will change my language.  I do believe that there are instances where people who are open carrying act unreasonably and do not exercise common sense.  I think that if they acted a little more reasonably, it would help even more than just raising awareness.  

I do not really see the statements made by the officers as threats for the reasons that I stated in my previous post.  I do not see the statement that if they get called back they will go through this process again as a threat because I regard the investigation as part of them doing their job and would be irritated if they did not do their job.  I would hope that the police would perform some sort of investigation (I use this term broadly) whenever they are actually disptached to a call and do not view it as harrasment if they respond to the same individual multiple times and perform the same investigation each time.

Quoted: However, there is an equal or greater chance that the public in general will feel threatened by it. Completely disagreed.  If you feel that's true, then we've already lost and it's just a matter of time.

I think that this is true to some extent, but maybe not the majority.  I probably should not have used threatened, I really meant that a good number of people would be uncomfortable about it.  I think that as time goes on, less and less people are exposed to firearms at a young age.  As a result, people just are not as comfortable around guns anymore and seeing guns in the hands of anything but law enforcement or the military can make them nervous.  I don't know how to change this, but I do not necessarily think that all is lost at this point.

Quoted: Where in the hell does he say that he does not like other people carrying guns? I may be wrong in my terminology (as there are at least three "color code" systems), but I understand condition white = threat identified.  I thought my explanation (and questions) were pretty logical.  For example - are you threatened by everyone that has firearms, or only those you can see?  I'm pretty sure that someone who feels threatened by anyone else that has a firearm might be classified as "someone who's not happy with others carrying firearms."  Can it be any clearer than that?

I took condition white to mean that someone is completely unaware of their surroundings.  So basically, I read his statement that as long as someone is not completely oblivious to their surroundings would feel at least a little uncomfortable with an armed person outside of a bank.  I don't think that feeling uncomfortable is the same as feeling threatened.  I also don't think that feeling uncomfortable is necessarily a sign that a person is scared of guns or doesn't feel that others should own them.  I do not think it would be until you reach condition red that you feel threatened and are ready to fight.



In summary, "they were doing their job" is another soundbite that means nothing.  If the law allows an LEO to point firearms at people who pose no threat, then the law is F'ed.  It was determined he wasn't doing anything illegal the minute they saw him.  The LEOs (as you pointed out) knew that OC was legal.  Again, "doing their job" sounds good, but does not justify their behavior.  I could say "I'm just being a good parent" while beating the stuff out of my kids on a public highway.  A citizen complaint doesn't and shouldn't have any more weight than the common sense of an officer, and shouldn't permit any more escalation of force than a standard interaction (besides the fact the officer must write a report).  I've spent some time in escalation of force training, and this one was way out of bounds.  

Again, it's my opinion that these officers just didn't like this guy carrying (or anyone?), and were operating with an agenda.  Unfortunately, this is consistent with Norfolk.  You can insert a number of analogies here (people with Irish flags, people with dreds, black guys with white girls, people driving yellow cars), and suddenly dropping at gunpoint, cuffing, checking them to make sure they're legal with no warrants, etc., doesn't sound so kosher.  Why are you so quick to support this against gun owners?  

I don't think that the police could have known that he was not doing anything illegal when they first say him.  They knew he was not doing anything illegal by open carrying.  However, unless the complaint was solely for open carrying then it is possible that there were other activities that the police were concerned about and needed to investigate before they could be satisfied that nothing was illegal.  Also, they had no way of knowing whether he was doing anything illegal by open carrying, they could just know that open carry was legal.  It is possible that he could have a warrant or past conviction which makes it illegal for him to possess a gun.

I am not trying to argue that the police have the authority to stop anyone they wish and run their name.  I don't think that they should have the power to do this at all.  However, if they receive a call about a man with a gun doing something (presumably), then that is not a random stop and they are justified in checking.


As far as why would I support the police over a gun owner, I don't have an exact answer for that.  I guess there are several reasons: 1. I know several police officers that have no problems with people owning guns, 2. I don't necessarily see this as an issue where by supporting the police I am not supporting gun owners, and 3. I don't believe that the police did anything wrong in this case and I certainly feel that there is nothing that they should be fired over.

Quoted: Quoted: Civprod, I agree with BlackFox that, even if these cops must respond to the call, and even if they must come with guns drawn, as soon as they see the person has a gun IN A HOLSTER they could probably holster their weapons.  If they see that a guy has a holstered gun, they are also free to observe him from a distance. There's absolutely no need to detain him, because there is no idication he is doing anything wrong. The standard is not that they are free to detain anyone until they figure out they are OBEYING the law. The standard is that they may not detain anyone until they have reasonable suspicion that they are BREAKING the law. The person who made the 911 call, when identified, should be told that simply seeing a person with a gun is not justification to make a 911 call and, the next time he does so, it is HE who will be getting cuffed and fingerprinted.  Just like if someone tells the cops I am beating my roommate senseless, and they break down my door and find us watching TV, they are going to go after the person who made the call.  And they are going to apologize to me.  Instead of telling me I had better not watch TV anymore or they'll continue to break down my door for beating up my roommate. Doesn't THAT solve all these problems better than continuing to point guns at a law-abiding person?

Part of the issue here is that we don't know what the guard told the police.  He could have told them that there was a man carrying a gun in the open.  They could have told the police that there is a guy with a gun about to rob the bank.  The call is probably enough to justify looking further into the situation, at least looking beyond what is plainly visible.

And as a practical matter, reasonable suspicion is a very very easy standard to meet and can be met with just a phone call.  The police don't have to observe anything further before they would have reasonable suspicion.

I have been lurking here, listening (well reading)....

As most people know I am friends with Civprod....I will try to post an opinion that is not completely cronyism....

BUT....

He is completely correct about the way those officers approached the guy in the original scenario....officer safety is paramount...the Courts consistently err on the side of this (its the whole reason we HAVE something like the Terry stop...i mean think about that for a second....we will ALLOW a momentary invasion of your Fourth Amendment rights for officer safety....there are other examples too...officers may severely interrogate you for the purposes of finding a weapon for safety (and only for safety) in violation of your Fifth Amendment rights...it really shouldnt surprise you that your Second Amendment rights may be momentarily supressed given the jurisprudence on the matter for officer safety).

Law aside...I have a strange number of personal connections to this....I have a sister in law who is a 911 supervisor, and has been a dispatcher for 15 years....and I know cops...my neighbor, in fact, is a PWC cop....

You would be stunned at the little amount of information that the 911 operators get before they begin to roll cops on that call...no, honestly, they probably arent asking the guy if the gun is in the holster....they have a protocol to follow in every situation...if you dont like the protocol, thats fine, but cut them a little slack...in a town like Norfolk they probably get an insane amount of calls....they have a protocol for likely every type of situation....cat up a tree? run the call...fire in a residence? run the call...man at a bank with a gun?  run the call...

And the cops on the scene arent getting information from the 911 operator, they are getting it from police dispatch...dispatch is giving them a certain amount of information on how to respond to that scene based on the 911 call (Code 2, high incident...respond with lights and sirens on, there is danger)...and things like that....and although I have never been a police officer, I have been in the military, and when something like that happens, training takes over, as does adrenalin, and you roll with how you have been trained....

So those cops probably responded to a "man with a gun in a bank" call...(be mad at the security guard if you are going to be made at anyone)....their training is to secure the scene, likely with weapons drawn, and to make sure the man with a weapon is not a threat to themselves or the public at large...

You damn right they are doing that with their weapons drawn...and that weapon does NOT go back into the holster until you are certain the subject is NOT a threat....i dont care (and they didnt either) that his weapon was holstered...how many of you practice holster draws?  I do...holstering their weapons gives away their advantage until they are sure the scene is secure....many police officers are now trained to approach questionable scenes with their weapons already drawn (like late night traffic stops...I have absolutely seen traffic stops at 1am where 1 cop goes to the door and the other cop stands back, weapon drawn...)

What stuns me the most about some of the things I have read in this thread is that some of the posters expect police to essentially ignore the fact that they have been dispatched on an emergency call to the scene...

Its as if you expect the following

"Officers respond to report of a man with a gun..."

"Quick lets go...wait...wait...the gun is in a belt holster...must just be a legal citizen open carrying!  Lets hit the donut shop!"

Give me a freaking break....the police have to investigate the call...

If anyone deserves scorn in this its the dumbass bank security guard, who didnt even bother to approach the guy...(i dunno, maybe its what they are trained to do too...if so...dumbasses...i doubt that highly)....

But those of you that expect police officers to approach a "man with a gun" scenario with their guns holstered, or to replace their guns  until they are absolutely sure the scene is safe ( to THEIR satisfaction, not yours, after all, its them who get shot, not you)...are freaking kidding yourself....

Because for every 10, or 20, or 100 calls those cops respond to that its a guy open carrying, or a kid with a squirt gun, or whatever, there is 1 where it is a meth head with a freaking gun looking to kill cops....and if they dont run the damn call the EXACT same way every time, and respond to it EVERY time in the way to MAXIMIZE their safety then one of them will get killed.....

As far as increased scrutiny from open carry versus concealed carry, sure, you get some, and that really isnt a surprise either is it?  Again, not saying its right, but is it a surprise?

People that make a lifelong habit of protesting and peaceably gathering are more likely to have their First Amendment rights questioned....me, I dont gather on the mall in DC to protest every weekend, so I havent had a lot of problems with the First

Here is a shocker....im not a criminal, and ive never really have to invoke my Fifth Amendment privileges, nor the Sixth, or the Eighth...

If you openly exercise a right, you are probably going to have more encounters that involve it.....im sorry, i just feel its common sense...

Quoted: I have been lurking here, listening (well reading).... As most people know I am friends with Civprod....I will try to post an opinion that is not completely cronyism.... BUT.... He is completely correct about the way those officers approached the guy in the original scenario....officer safety is paramount...the Courts consistently err on the side of this (its the whole reason we HAVE something like the Terry stop...i mean think about that for a second....we will ALLOW a momentary invasion of your Fourth Amendment rights for officer safety....there are other examples too...officers may severely interrogate you for the purposes of finding a weapon for safety (and only for safety) in violation of your Fifth Amendment rights...it really shouldnt surprise you that your Second Amendment rights may be momentarily supressed given the jurisprudence on the matter for officer safety). Law aside...I have a strange number of personal connections to this....I have a sister in law who is a 911 supervisor, and has been a dispatcher for 15 years....and I know cops...my neighbor, in fact, is a PWC cop.... You would be stunned at the little amount of information that the 911 operators get before they begin to roll cops on that call...no, honestly, they probably arent asking the guy if the gun is in the holster....they have a protocol to follow in every situation...if you dont like the protocol, thats fine, but cut them a little slack...in a town like Norfolk they probably get an insane amount of calls....they have a protocol for likely every type of situation....cat up a tree? run the call...fire in a residence? run the call...man at a bank with a gun?  run the call... And the cops on the scene arent getting information from the 911 operator, they are getting it from police dispatch...dispatch is giving them a certain amount of information on how to respond to that scene based on the 911 call (Code 2, high incident...respond with lights and sirens on, there is danger)...and things like that....and although I have never been a police officer, I have been in the military, and when something like that happens, training takes over, as does adrenalin, and you roll with how you have been trained.... So those cops probably responded to a "man with a gun in a bank" call...(be mad at the security guard if you are going to be made at anyone)....their training is to secure the scene, likely with weapons drawn, and to make sure the man with a weapon is not a threat to themselves or the public at large... You damn right they are doing that with their weapons drawn...and that weapon does NOT go back into the holster until you are certain the subject is NOT a threat....i dont care (and they didnt either) that his weapon was holstered...how many of you practice holster draws?  I do...holstering their weapons gives away their advantage until they are sure the scene is secure....many police officers are now trained to approach questionable scenes with their weapons already drawn (like late night traffic stops...I have absolutely seen traffic stops at 1am where 1 cop goes to the door and the other cop stands back, weapon drawn...) What stuns me the most about some of the things I have read in this thread is that some of the posters expect police to essentially ignore the fact that they have been dispatched on an emergency call to the scene... Its as if you expect the following "Officers respond to report of a man with a gun..." "Quick lets go...wait...wait...the gun is in a belt holster...must just be a legal citizen open carrying!  Lets hit the donut shop!" Give me a freaking break....the police have to investigate the call... If anyone deserves scorn in this its the dumbass bank security guard, who didnt even bother to approach the guy...(i dunno, maybe its what they are trained to do too...if so...dumbasses...i doubt that highly).... But those of you that expect police officers to approach a "man with a gun" scenario with their guns holstered, or to replace their guns  until they are absolutely sure the scene is safe ( to THEIR satisfaction, not yours, after all, its them who get shot, not you)...are freaking kidding yourself.... Because for every 10, or 20, or 100 calls those cops respond to that its a guy open carrying, or a kid with a squirt gun, or whatever, there is 1 where it is a meth head with a freaking gun looking to kill cops....and if they dont run the damn call the EXACT same way every time, and respond to it EVERY time in the way to MAXIMIZE their safety then one of them will get killed..... As far as increased scrutiny from open carry versus concealed carry, sure, you get some, and that really isnt a surprise either is it?  Again, not saying its right, but is it a surprise? People that make a lifelong habit of protesting and peaceably gathering are more likely to have their First Amendment rights questioned....me, I dont gather on the mall in DC to protest every weekend, so I havent had a lot of problems with the First Here is a shocker....im not a criminal, and ive never really have to invoke my Fifth Amendment privileges, nor the Sixth, or the Eighth... If you openly exercise a right, you are probably going to have more encounters that involve it.....im sorry, i just feel its common sense...

Nobody has answered my question yet.  Both you and civprod come back to laying the full responsibility for the entire situation on the guy legally carrying his gun.  Which is unacceptable.  Unacceptable that simply carrying a gun results in having one pointed at you.  Unacceptable that carrying a gun gets you detained.  Unacceptable that carrying a gun can get you arrested.

I've suggested that the real perpetrator in this scenario is the person who called 911.  Does anyone have a problem holding that person criminally responsible for causing the entire chain of events?

I can't peek over the fence at the next door neighbor, see that he's hitting something with a stick, and call the cops saying he's beating his wife, have them show up and it turns out he's knocking the dust out of a rug, can I?  To make a call to 911, you are either claiming that you believe someone is in trouble, or that someone is committing or about to commit a crime.  You can't call 911 because you just shit your pants in response to someone who has the TOOL to commit a crime.

Quoted: Nobody has answered my question yet.  Both you and civprod come back to laying the full responsibility for the entire situation on the guy legally carrying his gun.  Which is unacceptable.  Unacceptable that simply carrying a gun results in having one pointed at you.  Unacceptable that carrying a gun gets you detained.  Unacceptable that carrying a gun can get you arrested. I've suggested that the real perpetrator in this scenario is the person who called 911.  Does anyone have a problem holding that person criminally responsible for causing the entire chain of events?

I missed the question, but I will respond now.  I do have a problem with holding the person who set this chain of events in motion criminally liable.  It would be one thing if he was chronically abusing the 911 system; if he were giving them a large volume of calls about stuff that is not a crime, then yes, go after him.  However, in this case, we are talking about one or two calls (depending on whether or not it is the same guard).

Essentially, if this were allowed and people who make 911 calls where nothing ended up being illegal, you would essentially be forcing the individuals wishing to make the calls to investigate the situation themselves and make a judgment call about whether or not this is illegal.  It is not their duty to investigate the situation and there may be many situations where it is not prudent for them to do anything other than call 911.  I think that imposing criminal liability on people who make 911 calls like this would have a dangerous impact on people calling 911.

Again, if the person is making absolutely frivilous calls (calling the police all the time about things that any person would know is not a crime and tying up resources) then there is nothing wrong with criminal liability.  Also, if a person blatently lies (like saying that someone is getting raped/murdered when in reality they are wanting police to help with a drunk person), it might be ok to hold them criminally liable because of the amount of resources that would be tied up there.  However, if the person legitimately thought that something was a crime and they were wrong about that they should not be punished for it.  An honest, mistaken belief about the actions of another also should not be grounds for criminal liability.

As far as whether the results were unacceptable, you may disagree with the actions of the police.  However, I do not believe that the police officers did anything wrong in their responses.  Their actions were justified under the law and it would be wrong to punish them for it.  

hey brother...

im not laying responsibility there at all...in fact, if you read my post you will see I suggest in a couple places that the real dumbass in the situation is the original security guard.....


Just to clarify a couple of things...


I dont think ANYONE should be held criminally responsible for this situation....there may have been poor judgment exercised in a lot of the circumstances, but I dont think anyone did anything criminal

to try and avoid another lengthy post I will summarize:

1)  I absolutely support that gentleman's right to open carry....I dont think he did anything wrong.  I do think that you cannot be totally surprised that, if you carry a visible weapon into a bank that there, at least a possibility, that some security guard or nervous Nelly is going to call 911 on you.  Also, you would be stunned how frequently banks get robbed.....one of my best friends from law school (not Civprod) wife works for Wachovia and they have "robbery training" A LOT...the employees are hyper sensitve to this...i think if you open carry into a bank you are fine..but you cant be too terribly surprised if you get a few sideways glances from tellers...especially in a bigger town where robberies are more common...

2)  I think the security guard was a dumbass, but I dont know what his training/protocol is.  But, having said that, he has a right to call 911 if he is concerned or threatened.  He saw a guy he didnt know with a gun.  We also know that this guy was "waiting around for a friend"....so to him it probably looked like this guy isnt doing any teller window business...he isnt seeing any representatives...this guy is just standing around the lobby not doing any bank business with a gun....should he have approached and asked him?  Yeah probably....but at the same time this security guard probably has 1 hour of weapons training and makes $24k a year, and has seen HEAT like 30 times....I probably would have called 911 too...

3)  I think the cops have to run the call in response to the information they are given...which likely was that there is a bank security guard who is EXTREMELY worried about a guy in his bank with a gun....I think the officer's response first and foremost needs to be to secure the scene and ensure public and officer safety....and I think I have 0 problem with them doing that with weapons drawn....just as an aside...you dont think criminals...the really smart ones...arent aware of open carry laws in the Commonwealth?  and wont use them to their advantage?  I sure as hell would....shit I would walk into a bank carrying for the world to see...

So, in answer to your question, I dont know that I place "blame" on anyone....especially not for the first situation.....its certainly an unfortunate confluence of events....

1)  I think the guy should be allowed to open carry (although A LOT of banks post no weapons...so if they had that posted and he OC'd he is an idiot, because he is essentially creating a trespassing offense)

2)  I think the security guard probably had good reason in his mind to respond the way he did and call 911

and

3)  I think the cops responded within their training and their protocols and handled the situation as they should.

I'm not sure anyone did anything necessarily "wrong" in the initial scenario....you just have side effects of 1) perceptions and 2) training convening to create an unfortunate circumstance.

tspike (an active member here some time ago) observed someone poking around his car in his driveway at 2 a.m. (or so).  I personally know tspike - he's one of the good guys.  

He put on some sweats, grabbed a handgun and went outside.  With his handgun tucked behind his leg, he asked "can I help you?"  I may be missing some of the details here, but basically his association gives the HOA the right to tow vehicles with expired tags and his had been expired for a few days.  The tow truck drivers were there to take his car.  He never displayed or pointed his firearm, but once he realized what was going on he didn't really have anywhere to put it.  The guys circled him until one of them saw it.  They called it in and had him arrested for brandishing.  

He ultimately pled it down, but a number of people here were stunned that (a) this was arrestable, (b) it actually went the distance in court, and (c) a few of our knowledgable members (civprod and trio) suggested he got off lucky.  You guys were helpful in quoting the code for us, and a good discussion around carry options in this case ensued.  There was debate about a rifle on a sling, pistol in a holster, waistband, etc.  Ultimately, the consensus was that any device that retained the firearm was probably okay, but actually in your hands OR pointed at someone was a crime (and not a minor one) that would be prosecuted.  The only exception for this is when your life (or an innocent's) was in immediate danger.  

Since I used this as an example, I wanted to mention the specifics.  I'm sorry, but the police should be held to the exact same standard.  They can unstrap, they can put their hands on their pistols, but that firearm should never leave their holster unless their life or the life of an innocent is at stake.  This obviously includes a suspect who has ability, motive and opportunity to harm LEOs or others (ex: armed and beligerent), or have shown a disregard for LEO instructions.  I can link to a number of videos of negligent discharges killing innocent people - particularly after a chase with high adrenaline.  

Quoted: tspike (an active member here some time ago) observed someone poking around his car in his driveway at 2 a.m. (or so).  I personally know tspike - he's one of the good guys.   He put on some sweats, grabbed a handgun and went outside.  With his handgun tucked behind his leg, he asked "can I help you?"  I may be missing some of the details here, but basically his association gives the HOA the right to tow vehicles with expired tags and his had been expired for a few days.  The tow truck drivers were there to take his car.  He never displayed or pointed his firearm, but once he realized what was going on he didn't really have anywhere to put it.  The guys circled him until one of them saw it.  They called it in and had him arrested for brandishing.   He ultimately pled it down, but a number of people here were stunned that (a) this was arrestable, (b) it actually went the distance in court, and (c) a few of our knowledgable members (civprod and trio) suggested he got off lucky.  You guys were helpful in quoting the code for us, and a good discussion around carry options in this case ensued.  There was debate about a rifle on a sling, pistol in a holster, waistband, etc.  Ultimately, the consensus was that any device that retained the firearm was probably okay, but actually in your hands OR pointed at someone was a crime (and not a minor one) that would be prosecuted.  The only exception for this is when your life (or an innocent's) was in immediate danger.   Since I used this as an example, I wanted to mention the specifics.  I'm sorry, but the police should be held to the exact same standard.  They can unstrap, they can put their hands on their pistols, but that firearm should never leave their holster unless their life or the life of an innocent is at stake.  This obviously includes a suspect who has ability, motive and opportunity to harm LEOs or others (ex: armed and beligerent), or have shown a disregard for LEO instructions.  I can link to a number of videos of negligent discharges killing innocent people - particularly after a chase with high adrenaline.

Hey man,

I remembered your example, and this is where we are going to agree to disagree.  The police are not held to the same standard...i wont go into a lengthy legal discussion of police mandates, etc etc...i will simply say this...

When a private citizen responds, almost every time, their responsibility involves responding to a threat...and the legal force that supports their actions involves justification relating to the level of force that was presented to them...in essence...you and I are REACTIVE....

The police, on the other hand, while often REACTIVE, are also charged with being PROACTIVE....their mandate is to PROTECT and to SERVE...you don't expect a police officer to wait for a crime to occur before responding do you?  If this guy had been a bank robber, should the police have had to wait outside until he actually began to rob the bank to respond?  Of course not...

In many instances the job of the police is to proactively prevent crime...and that requires them to draw and use their weapons in a whole host of different scenarios than you or I ever will...

It is extremely unrealistic to expect to hold the police to the same standard as a private citizen....it wont ever happen.....

Quoted: Quoted: tspike (an active member here some time ago) observed someone poking around his car in his driveway at 2 a.m. (or so).  I personally know tspike - he's one of the good guys.   He put on some sweats, grabbed a handgun and went outside.  With his handgun tucked behind his leg, he asked "can I help you?"  I may be missing some of the details here, but basically his association gives the HOA the right to tow vehicles with expired tags and his had been expired for a few days.  The tow truck drivers were there to take his car.  He never displayed or pointed his firearm, but once he realized what was going on he didn't really have anywhere to put it.  The guys circled him until one of them saw it.  They called it in and had him arrested for brandishing.   He ultimately pled it down, but a number of people here were stunned that (a) this was arrestable, (b) it actually went the distance in court, and (c) a few of our knowledgable members (civprod and trio) suggested he got off lucky.  You guys were helpful in quoting the code for us, and a good discussion around carry options in this case ensued.  There was debate about a rifle on a sling, pistol in a holster, waistband, etc.  Ultimately, the consensus was that any device that retained the firearm was probably okay, but actually in your hands OR pointed at someone was a crime (and not a minor one) that would be prosecuted.  The only exception for this is when your life (or an innocent's) was in immediate danger.   Since I used this as an example, I wanted to mention the specifics.  I'm sorry, but the police should be held to the exact same standard.  They can unstrap, they can put their hands on their pistols, but that firearm should never leave their holster unless their life or the life of an innocent is at stake.  This obviously includes a suspect who has ability, motive and opportunity to harm LEOs or others (ex: armed and beligerent), or have shown a disregard for LEO instructions.  I can link to a number of videos of negligent discharges killing innocent people - particularly after a chase with high adrenaline.   Hey man, I remembered your example, and this is where we are going to agree to disagree.  The police are not held to the same standard...i wont go into a lengthy legal discussion of police mandates, etc etc...i will simply say this... When a private citizen responds, almost every time, their responsibility involves responding to a threat...and the legal force that supports their actions involves justification relating to the level of force that was presented to them...in essence...you and I are REACTIVE.... The police, on the other hand, while often REACTIVE, are also charged with being PROACTIVE....their mandate is to PROTECT and to SERVE...you don't expect a police officer to wait for a crime to occur before responding do you?  If this guy had been a bank robber, should the police have had to wait outside until he actually began to rob the bank to respond?  Of course not... In many instances the job of the police is to proactively prevent crime...and that requires them to draw and use their weapons in a whole host of different scenarios than you or I ever will... It is extremely unrealistic to expect to hold the police to the same standard as a private citizen....it wont ever happen.....

Fine, but in that case, and we've debated this before, the time it takes to raise a pistol from low ready and fire a shot is small enough (1/3 sec?) that if the cops aren't sure who they are facing and if the person is even a threat, why can't they just keep their guns pointed at the dirt?

training?  I dont know....maybe they can....I wouldnt have a problem with that....


An actual police officer is going to have chime in to answer that question man...I can only come at it from a legal perspective, and from that of the experience of knowing people who have been in this situation...

I do know there have been negligent discharges that have killed people (including the Fairfax incident)....

I also think that if you were to look at the number of times a police officer draws his weapon and points it at someone versus ND that it would likely be like .000001% (I mean the FFX county one is the only example I can think of here in NoVA in the last few years, whereas cops in this area probably draw their weapons probably hundreds  of times a day...)

Anyway...again....i dont know the answer to your question....my answer would be that is how they were trained...

to use a completely non scientific answer, just watch COPS...i mean...they ALL do it that way....right?

Quoted: The police, on the other hand, while often REACTIVE, are also charged with being PROACTIVE....their mandate is to PROTECT and to SERVE...you don't expect a police officer to wait for a crime to occur before responding do you?  If this guy had been a bank robber, should the police have had to wait outside until he actually began to rob the bank to respond?  Of course not...

Holy "Minority Report", Batman! If someone hasn't (yet) robbed a bank, they aren't a bank robber. There's a difference between trying to prevent crime (which, it can be argued, isn't really possible,) and trying to treat people as if they were about to do something they haven't done. Run the "papers" of everyone with a gun to ensure they can own one and you have to do the same every time you see two people standing in close proximity to ensure they aren't violating a restraining order, or every time you see someone buy liquor because hey, he might be under court order to abstain, and so on. Recall the scene in "Heat" where they let the guys go. Sometimes people do enough to get busted, like people obviously (to investigators) planning terrorist acts. Sometimes they don't. You can't pinch a guy for fueling his diesel truck then stopping at Agway for some fertilizer.

Quoted: It is extremely unrealistic to expect to hold the police to the same standard as a private citizen....it wont ever happen.....

Sad but true. If I negligently (recklessly even) killed an optometrist standing in his doorway I probably wouldn't be on administrative leave from my job.

Quoted: Quoted: The police, on the other hand, while often REACTIVE, are also charged with being PROACTIVE....their mandate is to PROTECT and to SERVE...you don't expect a police officer to wait for a crime to occur before responding do you?  If this guy had been a bank robber, should the police have had to wait outside until he actually began to rob the bank to respond?  Of course not... Holy "Minority Report", Batman! If someone hasn't (yet) robbed a bank, they aren't a bank robber. There's a difference between trying to prevent crime (which, it can be argued, isn't really possible,) and trying to treat people as if they were about to do something they haven't done. Run the "papers" of everyone with a gun to ensure they can own one and you have to do the same every time you see two people standing in close proximity to ensure they aren't violating a restraining order, or every time you see someone buy liquor because hey, he might be under court order to abstain, and so on.

Funny, but also not true...you know as well as I do that police investigate crimes before they actually occur on the tips of co-conspirators, informants, etc, etc.

No, he might not be guilty of bank robbery yet...but conspiracy to commit bank robbery (assuming he has a co-conspirator)...possibly....my point is still the same, and is still valid...police, all the time, investigate and intervene in crimes before they occur based on information gained from a variety of investigative techniques...

Blackfox's hypothesis, that police only be allowed to draw their weapon under the same circumstances that a private citizen, would severely hamstring many of these incidences...

How do Cops serve a high risk search warrant if they cant draw their weapons?  They should enter the premises and wait for a person inside to pull a gun, and then respond to their deadly force with like force?  That is, essentially, the standard a private citizen is held to...deadly force is justified in reaction to deadly force....of course, the entire example is ridiculous because a private citizen COULDNT serve a search warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment...

at any rate...whereas I love Glarus, and his ability to take any example ad absurdum...it isnt true in this case...

This wasnt the police just going after a guy standing around...there had been a 911 complaint made...they are charged with investigating it....

I appreciate your attempt to stretch my example to Tom Cruise-esque proportions...but what I described absolutely happens all the time...

its why we bandy about fancy terms like "probable cause" and "reasonable articulable suspicion"

I'll be in to see you this week and you can lay the smack down on me in person

Quoted: This wasnt the police just going after a guy standing around...there had been a 911 complaint made...

...about a guy standing around. At least that's what the OP's story seems to say.

Quoted: its why we bandy about fancy terms like "probable cause" and "reasonable articulable suspicion"

This sort of gets to the root of this whole discussion, doesn't it? Articulate a suspicion. A man with a gun might rob the bank? OK, a man with a car might be doing the same, it's his getaway car. One supposed suspicion sounds normal to a lot of people. The other doesn't even sound reasonable. These days you don't need to suggest reasons why you might have that car. But no one thinks of personal protection with the gun, and that's our problem. It's our PR failure. The whole OC vs. CC argument I think falls under that umbrella. It's a question of tack - what route do we take in opening peoples' minds? That's the argument here I won't get into, but good points are made for both sides.

Quoted: Quoted: This wasnt the police just going after a guy standing around...there had been a 911 complaint made... ...about a guy standing around. At least that's what the OP's story seems to say.

Again, sure...but if you look at one of my original posts, lets look at this from the bank guard's perspective...

This guy came into the lobby with a visible firearm....(you know how I feel about open carry, so dont bust my balls there)...

He didnt conduct any bank business...he didnt go to any of the tellers...he didnt go to one of the banking representatives....he stood there, openly armed...

Now, sure, I get that the guy probably should have approached him, but I admit, if I was a guard, that would look suspicious to me..

And for the record...the fact that he was armed wouldnt matter to me....if someone came into my bank, and just stood around for a while, I would start to eyeball him....again, bank robberies occur a lot more often than people think....the fact that this guy was armed would just be one more thing that piqued my curiousity...its not like people just "hang out" at banks....be reasonable...there is a guy (armed or not) who has been standing for a period of time looking around my bank, not doing any bank business...you're a GUARD...of COURSE you get suspicious...

Also, you dont think that bank robbers dont know that open carry is legal in VA?  Sure they do....if I was planning a crime I surely would consider sending my advance man around openly armed if it was legal to do so and I didnt think it would garner more attention...

So now you have an armed man, just standing around a bank lobby, not doing any bank business...

So...this guard (probably) is making a salary that puts him close to the poverty line...he has seen HEAT a million times....he likely barely graduated high school....and just wants to punch out and have a beer....for all we know one of the tellers TOLD him to call 911....again, as I said, they are hypersensitive to this shit...and go through training like every month...

Perspective is key here....I think you are failing to look at it from the other people's point of view....I dont think the OC guy did anything wrong...I surely dont..

But I can probably see where the Security Guard was coming from too...

And I can see where the Cops were coming from too...

Im not villifying anyone here...I think they all probably acted in a manner they thought was reasonable given their perspective of the situation at the time...


EDIT:  Also, to respond to your first post...even if he hasnt moved yet he could be guilty of ATTEMPTED BANK ROBBERY.....just by walking into the bank (assuming that was what he intended)...in Virginia, attempt is "a substantial step towards the completion" of the crime....if you wanted to rob a bank, walking into it armed, even if you never drew your gun, would likely be enough...

I can't find where it says he went into the bank. He waited across the street because it was cooler outside. If he did go into the bank and looked shady I might be persuaded to buy into a suspicion argument.

Quoted: They had a report of a man with a gun.

....

Scary what this society has become, isn't it?

From carrying them on your hip, in the open 24/7, to having to worry about what people think when you do.

What a sad, sad society.

It further saddens me to see our community divided on the importance of this issue to the overall issue of gun rights.

yeah, i just went back and re-read it...i thought he went into the bank...thats my bad....

i still think, from the security guard's perspective, it could easily be a guy casing the joint....

its also obviously an area they patrol for the guards to be out there....I would need to see it to know what its like....

Having said that, I still go back to what I originally said way back in my first response...the key dumbass here is obviously the security guard...but I still think his actions are probably understandable (albeit dumb)

I also think crucifying the cops for responding the way they did without reading the FOIA report is premature at best....

Quoted: EDIT:  Also, to respond to your first post...even if he hasnt moved yet he could be guilty of ATTEMPTED BANK ROBBERY.....just by walking into the bank (assuming that was what he intended)...in Virginia, attempt is "a substantial step towards the completion" of the crime....if you wanted to rob a bank, walking into it armed, even if you never drew your gun, would likely be enough...

So what's the substantial step, having a gun in a bank? If you were a CA you could in good conscience (and with a straight face) tell that to a judge? Does the bank make it more plausible because it's considered a desirable target? That's where we want the battleground over criminality to lie? You "attempt to rob" gun shops all the time. You want that specter hanging over you every time you carry into a jeweler's, or 7-11, or answer the door armed for the pizza delivery guy?

Quoted: Quoted: They had a report of a man with a gun. .... Scary what this society has become, isn't it? From carrying them on your hip, in the open 24/7, to having to worry about what people think when you do. What a sad, sad society. It further saddens me to see our community divided on the importance of this issue to the overall issue of gun rights.

Maybe you and I read this differently, but I dont see a divide on the importance of this issue to gun rights...

I see a divide on the police response to a complaint called in, but I admittedly havent read some of the more "flameworthy" posts in this thread....

Im sorry, but I want the police to respond when they are called by a bank security guard about a "man with a gun"....

I want them to respond in a professional manner that ensure everyone's safety...their own, mine, the public's AND the suspect's

I want them to investigate the situation and determine if there is a crime occurring in a professional and efficient manner

And if there isn't, and if it is a guy OCing like this was, I expect them to educate the dumbass security guard on the law....(still mad at myself for missing that the guy didnt go into the bank)

Thats what I EXPECT our Cops to do....my problem with the Tony's 7 incident wasn't that the Cops responded, it was that they were unprofessional....

I thoroughly understand and appreciate the need for officer's to ensure their safety...I appreciate what they do...I don't do it, and don't know that I could....

Everytime that radio goes off and they have to respond to a "man with a gun" one of them could DIE...how many of us deal with that daily?  I don't...(although my 1 year old is VICIOUS...VICIOUS i tell you...)

Quoted: Quoted: EDIT:  Also, to respond to your first post...even if he hasnt moved yet he could be guilty of ATTEMPTED BANK ROBBERY.....just by walking into the bank (assuming that was what he intended)...in Virginia, attempt is "a substantial step towards the completion" of the crime....if you wanted to rob a bank, walking into it armed, even if you never drew your gun, would likely be enough... So what's the substantial step, having a gun in a bank? If you were a CA you could in good conscience (and with a straight face) tell that to a judge? Does the bank make it more plausible because it's considered a desirable target? That's where we want the battleground over criminality to lie? You "attempt to rob" gun shops all the time. You want that specter hanging over you every time you carry into a jeweler's, or 7-11, or answer the door armed for the pizza delivery guy?

reread what I wrote, brother..."assuming that is what he intended"....its right there in the part you quoted

I guess I should have pasted that in my earlier response to your minority report response....

You know, as well as I do, the levels of intent (mens rea) necessary to commit a crime...in your example (again, ad absurdum) there is NO mens rea...

If someone walks into a bank with the requisite mens rea to rob it, the police can certainly draw their weapons and arrest that person for Attempted Bank Robbery before the person ever draws a gun and starts the process of robbing the bank...the walking into the bank, armed, AND WITH THE INTENT, is enough for the substantial step...

you know elements, though, glarus....mens rea coupled with actus reas....give me SOME credit here....

ETA:  but to answer your question, no, of course no CA would try that in this instance, or any instance where someone just had a gun because they couldnt prove the requisite intent to commit the crime...in my example, though, i specifically indicated "if it was what he intended"...I dont attempt to rob gun shops all the time because I have no specific or general intent to do so...I have no mens rea to go along with my actus reas....having said that...if one day I decided I really wanted to rob VA Arms, and I was going to use my G17 to do it on, say Friday at 3pm...going into VA Arms on Friday at 255pm with my G17 would absolutely be enough of a substantial step, when combined with my specific intent, to arrest me for attempted armed robbery...

(Having said that, I am probably going to VA Arms on Friday to get the sights on my G17 changed...so please tell Luis, Robb, Bernie, Tim, Ted, Dave, and the guys NOT TO SHOOT ME.....IT WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE)

Quoted: First you can't carry in a bank. [understood] Next you can't carry AROUND a bank. [we are here ,now,today] Then you can't carry on the same block as a bank.[next year, or in 5 years] There is a bank on every block.

carrying in a bank is perfectly legal...unless posted otherwise...
open carrying in a bank is perfectly stupid

EDIT:  I dont want to give out bad advice...

You can absolutely carry in a bank...

Private businesses with no weapons signs posted on the door do not gain some sort of legal status under Virginia law...

their right to deny weapons is based in the same manner as their right to refuse pets or service to people without shoes and shirts....

I see people go into 7-11 all the time in summer without their shirt on, even though it says that shoes and shirts are required...it only becomes a problem if they are asked to leave and refuse....

You can take that example where you like to....

As another example, if I had a pet hampster that I carried around in my pocket, and I went into a Best Buy with a no pets sign posted, but they couldnt see my pet hamster named, say, I dunno, Glock 17?, then they really dont know I am violating their private policy do they....and since its not illegal to carry my hampster into Best Buy's under the VA Code, I wouldnt be breaking the law, I would really only be breaking a Best Buy policy....of course, if they discovered my indiscretion and asked me to leave I would have to or then I would no longer be welcome there and could be charged with trespassing....

Quoted: ...the key dumbass here is obviously the security guard...

Apparently the cops didn't agree with that perspective.  From the linked thread:

The security guard is employed by Wackenhut.   They usually stand inside the building and outside across the street.  While I was sitting in the sqaud car, he came out and told the officers he made the call.  Shook their hands and left.

Quoted: Ok, I have desperately been trying to avoid responding in this thread, but I can't avoid the urge any longer. I fully support what the LEO's did and don't believe that they did anything wrong.  There is an easy justification for what they did: officer safety.  -snip the rest of your usless drivel...-

if an oficer wants to be 'safe', he or she can be... quit. Plain and simple.

Officer safety does not trump my rights, or anyone elses' rights. Period end of story.

Etiher stand up for your rights, or give them all up in the name of safety.

Quoted: Quoted: I tryed open carry a couple of times, I quickly decided to do away with it, I was uncomfortable with all the stares I was getting the 2 times I OC'ed. Good - then you realize what a hassle it can be to OC?  I don't OC as much as I used to, because sometimes I'd just rather go about my business than worry about it.  I still appreciate those who consistently do, and still try to OC on occasion.  These 100 degree days certainly do help Quoted: I would have felt lucky that the officer in question ONLY drew his weapon on me. You're grateful if you don't get shot for minding your business while obeying the law and doing nothing to demonstrate you mean any harm to yourself or others??  I know your probably meant you were kidding.  I still find it completely unacceptable to have a weapon drawn and pointed in a situation that didn't involve someone who had proven to be a threat.   This was an LEO with an agenda abusing his position of authority.  The liability he just exposed the City of Norfolk to and the unnecesary threat to this man's life was inexcusable.   I'm still dying to hear someone defend the guys on the 2nd day....

Yea, my did mean I was kidding . I can understand your points!

Quoted: Quoted: Ok, I have desperately been trying to avoid responding in this thread, but I can't avoid the urge any longer. I fully support what the LEO's did and don't believe that they did anything wrong.  There is an easy justification for what they did: officer safety.  -snip the rest of your usless drivel...- if an oficer wants to be 'safe', he or she can be... quit. Plain and simple. Officer safety does not trump my rights, or anyone elses' rights. Period end of story. Etiher stand up for your rights, or give them all up in the name of safety.

Well, unfortunately, the United States Supreme Court doesn't agree with you....it feels there are instances where your rights can be "trumped" to ensure officer safety....the Terry stop in my first post is a perfect example....the Supreme Court relaxed the standard of "probable cause" to conduct a search on a person by an officer so that an officer could conduct a weapon's search of an individual if they had a "reasonable articulable suspicion" to do so to ensure their safety...Terry v. Ohio...its probably the most famous, but its not the only one....

There are numerous instances where the courts allow temporary invasions of the rights of private citizens (typically the Fourth or Fifth Amendment) in order to ensure the safety of police officers in the conduct and course of their duties.  Once officer safety is ensured, the level of rights is, of course, restored.  To continue my above example of a "Terry stop", once the officer ensures the subject of the stop doesnt have weapons they must then have "probable cause" to conduct a more thorough search.

But the officer safety, in many instances, ABSOLUTELY trumps your individual rights....

The safety of the public, in some instances, trumps your individual rights as well...there is jurisprudence that allows police to violate Miranda and your Fifth Amendment rights to gain information from you if there is a threat at large that may pose a threat to the public (for example, if during a foot pursuit you dumped a handgun in a playground that could be discovered by children..they can absolutely try and get its location out of you to ensure public safety even if you try and invoke your Fifth Amendment right not to be questioned outside the presence of counsel)...

You may feel this is wrong...I may even agree with you...but the Courts do not...


ETA:  Dr Mark, what did you expect the cops to do when the security guard approached them?  Shoot him?  I dont see that as an endorsement of his behavior.  I see that as, well, the security guard went to shake the cops hand and the cops shook his hand....

Quoted: Blackfox's hypothesis, that police only be allowed to draw their weapon under the same circumstances that a private citizen, would severely hamstring many of these incidences...

Quoted: ....but the police should be held to the exact same standard. They can unstrap, they can put their hands on their pistols, but that firearm should never leave their holster unless their life or the life of an innocent is at stake. This obviously includes a suspect who has ability, motive and opportunity to harm LEOs or others (ex: armed and beligerent), or have shown a disregard for LEO instructions.

Just so there's no misunderstandings.  I recognize that LEOs have an obligation to protect the public, whereas a non-LEO does not.  I recognize that high risk raids (suspect is armed, has shown disregard for the law and LEOs and is considered dangerous) and other situations require drawn weapons.  Quite honestly, I have no conflict with this while still stating that LEOs and other citizens should have the exact same laws around escalation of force.  The escalation of force by LEOs in the situations you listed is completely appropriate.  They should be held to the same standard as the rest of us when interacting with non-violent or dangerous people in their day-to-day duties.  

If the law allows LEOs to point weapons at people who do not pose any threat, I say again the law is F'ed.  There's no way to reasonably articulate clear and immediate danger of life in this situation.  And to quote those of you who are so against open carry - even if the law allows the LEOs to "draw down" in this situation, it doesn't make it right!  

Quoted: If this guy had been a bank robber, should the police have had to wait outside until he actually began to rob the bank to respond? Of course not...

There's a HUGE difference between waiting outside during a bank robbery and taking down a law abiding person who poses no threat at gunpoint.  How about they just go and stand inside the bank?  How about they walk by the gentleman, make eye contact and ask him how he's doing today on the way in?  Both of these actions serve to deter anything bad that may happen, give the officer a change to gauge the armed man's state and ultimately offer no danger to anyone involved.  

Besides the fact he was in the proximity of a bank and armed, was there any other indication that he was a bank robber?  Is every kid with baggy pants in a store a shoplifter?  How about people with pagers and standing on a street corner - drug dealers?  I have been in this situation many times (openly armed and in public), and I'm pretty sure have had LEOs called on me.  I've only had one instance where the responding officer even spoke to me, and it was very low key and friendly.  He asked me if I knew my sidearm was showing, and I said "yes, thanks!"  I walked away from another positive experience with LEOs, and anyone around me who may have been concerned felt better because either LEOs were nearby or had actually spoken to me.  

I went into a movie theater once years ago openly carrying (Commonwealth 20 at 288 and Hull if anybody cares).  Two of Chesterfield's finest (Sgt's taking the cushy side work) were in the lobby.  I waved as I went in with my right hand (with my sidearm on my right side).  It was my way of being friendly, but also casually letting them know I was armed.  As my wife I were standing in line to get popcorn a few minutes later, they came over and said hello.  They asked if I had a concealed permit, and I said I did.  They asked why I was carrying openly, and I reminded them it was 100 degrees outside that day.  They then asked "doesn't that make people nervous?"  I responded "not unless I'm surrounded by police officers like I've done something wrong!"   They looked around and realized nobody had cared until they came over .  They told me to have a great day and walked away.  That's the way to handle these situations.  They verified I'm a "good guy" and knew what I was doing.  They comforted anybody around me who may have been nervous (nobody seemed to be, but who knows).  And they were nearby if I had done anything stupid.  Everybody wins!

Quoted: I also think that if you were to look at the number of times a police officer draws his weapon and points it at someone versus ND that it would likely be like .000001% (I mean the FFX county one is the only example I can think of here in NoVA in the last few years, whereas cops in this area probably draw their weapons probably hundreds of times a day...)

Just because engaging in unecesarily high risk activity doesn't frequently end badly, doesn't make it any better.  Tell me counselor, how far would this logic would get me in court on a brandishing charge?  You and I both know the answer.  When looking down the barrel of a loaded gun, I tend to feel all the statistics in the world will do little to comfort you that you're not in grave danger.  

In general, I feel that if LEO's in your area draw their weapons hundreds of times a day, they're either wildly out of control or you need to move to a better area .  I'd be suprised if it was 10 or more instances a day.  

Corrections officers typically have to complete paperwork if they load or point their weapons.  I don't think it's such a bad idea for our LEOs to do the same when their weapons are drawn and pointed either.  If nothing else, it would be a good basis for an AAR and reduces liability for the gov't.  

Quoted: If the law allows LEOs to point weapons at people who do not pose any threat, I say again the law is F'ed.  There's no way to reasonably articulate clear and immediate danger of life in this situation.  And to quote those of you who are so against open carry - even if the law allows the LEOs to "draw down" in this situation, it doesn't make it right!

I think that it is hard to make any determination on whether the LEO's believed that there was immediate danger without knowing what they were told in their dispatch.

Quoted: If this guy had been a bank robber, should the police have had to wait outside until he actually began to rob the bank to respond? Of course not... There's a HUGE difference between waiting outside during a bank robbery and taking down a law abiding person who poses no threat at gunpoint.  How about they just go and stand inside the bank?  How about they walk by the gentleman, make eye contact and ask him how he's doing today on the way in?  Both of these actions serve to deter anything bad that may happen, give the officer a change to gauge the armed man's state and ultimately offer no danger to anyone involved.   Besides the fact he was in the proximity of a bank and armed, was there any other indication that he was a bank robber?

Again, without the dispatch record it is hard to know.  The guards could have called it in as someone was about to rob the bank, which would have meant that the police really would not have had the time to necessarily walk by the person or observe him for a period of time.  Depending on what the call was, the officers may have felt that deterrence was not possible because of the immediate nature of the problem.

However, if the call was just for a man with a gun then they would have had more time.  The only indication we have from the original post is that after the police were already on the scene and when one of the officers were talking to dispatch he overheard "it's a man with a gun."  However, this isn't really enough to figure out the context of it.  I personally believe that the call was more along the lines of "someone is going to rob the bank" and not "there is a man with a gun."  Granted, this is just an assumption (I know) but I think that the differences in the approaches between the first and second encounters show that the calls were probably different.

Deterrence would be a viable option, only if the police believed that they had time.  However, if the only information that the officers had was that there was an immediate threat to which they needed to respond quickly to, then deterrence probably was not the proper course of action and the police acted correctly.

I seriously can't believe that this stupid thread went this long.  If you OC, have fun, OC, and be done with it. If you CCW, have fun (stealthy fun), CCW and be done with it.  No one is going to convince the otherside so what is the point of arguning for another 4 pages?

Quoted: Maybe you and I read this differently, but I dont see a divide on the importance of this issue to gun rights...

Yeah, you and I are reading it differently.  I quoted PRECISELY the key phrase I wanted to illustrate.

"a call about a man with a gun"..... so freaking what...so what!

It's freaking sad.

1) The security guard doesn't know the law, which means we aren't doing enough for these assclowns to take time to learn the law.

2) People are "scared" by guns in holsters, which means we have devolved WAY too far from a society that knew why we carried and used guns, to a society that fears anyone carrying a gun but not wearing a piece of polished/plated brass on their chest.

3) We have people who are "gun guys" stating that we should be hiding, away from plain sight, because our legally protected rights are "scary" and garner attention.

4) I carry concealed, because I do not want people to know I have a gun until such time as I NEED to use it to defend my life, or the life of an innocent.  However, open carry is perfectly legal in 98% of the places in this Commonwealth.  If people wish to take advantage of that law, they should not be treated like common criminals until an officer with more than two brain cells can rectify the situation.

5) I know that action beats reaction, but approaching every person you encounter with a PROPERLY holstered sidearm with your gun drawn and aimed in indicates that we have a real, and tangible, problem in this society.  Which will never get better by having every gun owner/carrier hiding in the corners...

Blackfox,

I'm not going to do the quote thing because its just too long...

A couple of things

1)  When I referred to LEOs drawing their weapons "hundreds" of times a day, I was referring to the whole NoVA area....I'd be interested to see how far off I am...if you look at the NoVA, Greater Metro DC area, you are talking millions of people....in Bristow?  Manassas?  no, you are right...probably 10...but in this region?  daily?  I'd be interested to see....I bet its hundred...

2)  My point is, and has been from the beginning, that the police have NO idea what they are getting into...and that they will always...ALWAYS...err on the side of officer and public safety when it involves a report of an incident of an armed suspect...ALWAYS...

we only have one side of a three sided story here...

we have no idea:

1)  What the SOP for the bank guard was....
2)  What the exigent circumstances for the bank guard was (was he told to be on the lookout for possible African American robbery suspects?  I dont know, do you?  How many robberies have occurred in Norfolk around this time frame?  Has this guy ever been in a bank thats been robbed?  All of these things are parts of the story we do not know)
3)  What was in the 911 call?  What was told to the police when they were dispatched?  What is the Norfolk PD SOP for responding to reports to a "man with a gun"?  
4)  What were the exigent circumstances with the cops?  


3)  As far as police response, your issue is how police are trained.  If I read your response correctly, you want police to vary their response because the person they are responding to COULD be just some guy open carrying.

That, I think it is safe to say, is probably never going to happen.

The police will always respond to an unknown situation in which the unknown person is armed in a manner that is designed to ensure their safety and the publics...it is how they are trained...

I am not the best to argue that, as I am not a cop...

Lets, for a second though, pretend the guy in the OP WAS a bank robber, taking advantage of open carry....and now the cops "drive by" to investigate....so he promptly draws down, shoots the security guard, and opens fire on the cruiser....the police will have thus ensured that they didnt offend the person if he was just OCing, thats for sure...

height=8

Quoted: height=8 Quoted: well Blackfox let me tell you somethings about my self: my name is Luis, former Marine and proud owner of many firearms. I love shooting and competing in IPSC, IDPA and three gun competitions. I don't have any specific intentions, but i will be dam if some dumb ass gives somebody an excuse to take my right to defend my self by carrying a concealed hand gun away. Hmm.  A "former" Marine?  Didn't know there was such a thing.   Own lots of guns and like to shoot a lot?  Great!  I love Porsches, bright shiney fire engines, and Nigerian scammers with bunnies on their heads.  Woo hoo!!  Enjoying a thing and being excited about owning/using it does not equal being passionate about or understanding a Right.  I'm not belittling any of what you said.  It's just irrelevant.   I'm sorry if anyone who makes any waves that might inconvenience you is a "dumb ass."   Do you believe the 2nd is a God-given right, or just a temporary loophole that you enjoy?  I don't understand how you feel this is such an arbitrary thing that can be taken at any time.   You seem worried about your ability to carry a firearm *poof* disappearing, but I have yet to see a single reference to anything proactive you're willing to do about it (besides hide it).  What are YOU doing to help?  Can you at least appreciate the spirit of someone who's willing to risk harassment and threats to make a point?   height=8 Quoted: there was no need to have this situation, even if you do have a concealed carry permit you know that you cant do it in a bank(which i don't necessarily agree with) Wrong - you can OC and CCW in a bank any time you like.  I do it every week (open carry).  How do you work in a gun shop and not know that?   height=8 Quoted: I don't worry that much about what people think about me, but i am very aware to the fact that not every body loves or even likes guns and concealed carry as much as i do. for that reason I will carry my self as best as i can and try to be a good example of a responsible gun owner not a person attracting unwanted attention, always hoping that i will never have to draw my gun out of its holster. How is hiding your firearms because somebody might not like them helping anyone?  How is that "responsible?"  If people didn't like leather shoes or jackets, would you stop wearing them too?  How about cars that get less than 50 MPG?  It seems funny to say you don't care what other people think, and then immediately state that your actions are driven by what other people like or don't like.  You sound a lot like those people who say "I believe in the second amendment, but....."   height=8 Quoted: I think that any one not in condition white would have felt uncomfortable if encountering an individual outside a bank with a gun in the open, at least I would. but that is my humble opinion, and no Blackfox you will never hear me speak against firearms, I like them to much and that is one reason why i didn't go back to NYC(besides Hillary)hite height=8 Quoted: The cops were wrong, but he shouldn't have been there. if only a little bit of common sense would have been used, If only!!!! it is legal but not smart to open carry around a bank, like it has been said before. a person being drag out of a car and handcuff for speeding is totally different than responding to a call of an armed individual in front of a bank. if you don't think so go out and spend a couple of nights with your local LEO on a ride along, you might change your mind. hinking.gif Funny how you've made it his fault the LEO's were wrong.  He's to blame for them threatening to harrass him every day he obeyed the law his You're right - motor vehicle violations are different than a firearm issue.  There is no Constititionally-guaranteed Right to operate a motor vehicle!!  It's a privilege, not a Right, and you are subject to more severe actions when operating a motor vehicle on a public road.   As for ride alongs somehow enlightening me  - you know what they say when you assume things about people you don't know.... height=8 Quoted: you will hear me speak against people talking on the phone and driving. some of this people cant walk and chew gum at the same time, but they choose to put other people in danger so they can use a phone?  once again just my opinion her  Yep - why wait for someone to do something silly while driving and talking on the phone (cross the line, swerve in traffic, etc.) and cite them for that?  Let's preempt it and ban it for your safety and convenience, because we all know there can't be people responsible enough to drive and talk at the same time.  We all know we need to think for "the people" because they're not very bright.  Heck, let's just start passing more laws to keep people from doing things that might harm themselves or others.  We all know that concept of personal responsibility is a silly notion.  Just look - the rest of the world has already done away with it!! hinknot such a thing as an EX MARINE, there are only FORMER MARINES like i had already stated. If you choose to carry openly(like i did say before) POWER to you, be ready to have to provide ID's or to even be harassed. I choose to carry conceal, because I like carrying concealed not because i am afraid some one is not going to like the carbon fiber look of my holster or the gun i am carrying, Its is my choice to carry concealed. this doesn't mean i am less passionate about the second amendment than you are.   YES... I DO BELIEVE ON THE SECOND AMENMENT, NO BUT'S.   but maybe i need to make waves to prove to everybody else(since i do care about what everybody else thinks hat I mentioned the top shooters because i hate when people say that guns do thing's . People operate guns, guns do not operate people. But in case you were wondering I am passionate about shooting hat I do work in a gun store, i don't work in a police department or lawyer firm that allows me to give people legal advice, but these days even cops give and have the wrong information. I give people the means and good ways to find the correct information from the correct sources, not someones interpretation of a rule or Law. I have no problem telling a customer "I am sorry sir, I don't have the answer to that question. but let me find you a way to get it" I hate people giving wrong information, so i refuse to do it. and as far as I am concerned you most be a real genius to compare or even bring up something as wrong as a rape to this discussion. RAPE is RAPE what does this have to do with this? no it doesn't matter what the girl was wearing hatdon't ask me to drink the same koolaid you do because you think it is the best out there. when it comes to the ride alongs, people seem to forget the BS our police departments deal with on a day to day basis. that was the point i was trying to make, i wasn't trying to assume anything. If i believe that people shouldn't talk on the cell phone while they drive, than by god that is what i think. you go try to avoid a dumb ass that comes across the road because they were trying to dial a phone. Blackfox you do have a lot of solid valid points that i agree with, i just don't agree with all of them. but there are plenty of points of view out there, enjoy yours!!!!

I have a question.  Does the security guard open carry a gun?  Why didn't the cops bother him about his weapon?  Maybe some should call the cops on him for having a gun near a bank.

Quoted: Quoted: I have a question.  Does the security guard open carry a gun?  Why didn't the cops bother him about his weapon?  Maybe some should call the cops on him for having a gun near a bank. Im not sure that is really the example you want to use but... sure, if a bank employee were to call the police about someone in a security guard's uniform, armed that they saw near the bank that they had suspicions about I would expect the cops to respond in the exact same way...(if, in your example, a private citizen calls, I think it likely they ensure the guard is not a bank employee...thats why i specify that a bank employee calls) that is the point that I guess makes the difference here for me...its not like the Norfolk police specifically rolled up on a dude just hanging out randomly open carrying.... They had a SPECIFIC complaint...a SPECIFIC 911 call..and they HAVE to investigate it and clear the call... I would be A LOT more upset if the OP had just been standing there and the cops had just pulled up and given him crap... But thats not what happened...there was a 911 call, and the police responded....they are obligated to handle the situation and respond to the calls and investigate the situation....

I was more or less being a smartass because some of this is to serious.  

My point would of been that had an armed security guard called 911 over me having a gun and I was detained(for a long period) or treated badly by the responding officers.  I might of dialed 911 shortly after to report him for having a gun.

Just because your a police officer or security guard you would still be a "man with a gun" in my book.  The badge or uniform gives you no special rights to be treated differently.

Lots of people get nervous just at the presence of a police officer.  So does that mean they should call 911 because the "man with a gun" makes them feel nervous?


ETA:  If I dialed 911 and reported a man with a gun and when they got there saw it was a police officer.  Do you think they would "investigate" as much?

Yeah, that's right...all the cops in the state should quit, so that they are safe at night...yeah, ok...nice comment stupid!!

Quoted: Quoted: Ok, I have desperately been trying to avoid responding in this thread, but I can't avoid the urge any longer. I fully support what the LEO's did and don't believe that they did anything wrong.  There is an easy justification for what they did: officer safety.  -snip the rest of your usless drivel...- if an oficer wants to be 'safe', he or she can be... quit. Plain and simple. Officer safety does not trump my rights, or anyone elses' rights. Period end of story. Etiher stand up for your rights, or give them all up in the name of safety.

Quoted: And once again, just because there is a precedence, doesn't make it right. A guy with a gun IN A HOLSTER, NOT MAKING ANY ATTEMPT TO UNHOLSTER SAID WEAPON, is not an immediate threat. If that were the case, open carry would be illegal. Just because there is a law, or a precedent, doesn't make the law or the precedence right, or correct. Yes, rights have limits, but the officer in question has no more right to detain a person who was CLEARLY withing the law. I hope that this individual sues the NPD for big bucks.

You may disagree with the precedence but it is there.  If this guy attempts to sue the NPD for big bucks, he will lose badly.  There is no grounds for him to sue.  He can't even really sue to get the law changed because there is a 99% chance that the courts will not change existing case law over a case like this where there was ultimately no harm suffered other than a brief (legal) detention while an investigation was conducted.

And once again (I sound like a broken record here), there is no way for the officer to tell that the person was clearly within the law until after the officer completed everything.  Can you tell from looking at someone whether they have any warrants?  Can you tell if they have past felony convictions, a restraining order in place, or anything else that would prevent them from possessing a gun?  Just because something appears at first glance to be completely legal does not mean that it is and the police officers would be neglecting their duty if they did not investigate further. Remember, this is not a case where the police officers were just driving down the street, saw a guy with a gun, stopped him and then proceeded to investigate whether he was doing something wrong.  This is a case where the police were responding to a 911 call, and they had every right (and they should do this) to investigate the call to make sure that everything was either fine or determine whether or not their was something illegal going on.  This was a detention pursuant to a 911 call about a possible crime in progress and an investigation was warranted.  The detention is perfectly legal, no grounds to sue there.  

As far as the point about officer safety, I flat out disagree with you.  One, because we don't know the nature of the call, we don't know whether or not the police would have thought or been led to believe that there was an immediate serious threat such that they would not have had time to investigate.  The call could very well have been that there is a guy with a gun about to rob the bank.  In that instance, it would just be stupid to suggest that the officers should perform some sort of investigation prior to taking action.  That call requires an immediate response and a response like the one in the post is completely appropriate (this may not be the call, I know).

I think that the police are perfectly justified in treating any call involving a man with a gun or a man with a weapon as an immediate threat and they should be able to take actions to protect themselves. I am not talking about shooting first before you figure out what is going on, but drawing their weapons is an appropriate response.  An officer should not have to go defenseless into a situation where there is a potential immediate deadly threat against them.  As far as the point about the weapon being holstered, this fact can change very quickly.  It might be the case that alot of the population may not be able to draw a weapon and aim it before the police take any action, but there are some that probably can.  The police should not be forced to take the chance that they would have time to react to the threat before taking steps to protect themselves.  The police also should not have to perform a full investigation before determining whether or not there is an immediate threat, they should be able to rely upon the information provided to them by their dispatcher and the 911 call in determining the initial response.

You have already said that you believe that the police and regular citizens should be subjected to the exact same laws regarding the use of force.  Like Trio, I disagree with you on this point because of the role that the police play.  Regular citizens do not have as part of their jobs the responsibilty to respond to calls concerning potentially violent situations.  In fact, most citizens reactions to that would be to turn the opposite way and get out of there if they found themselves in a violent situation.  Unless you are in a position where part of your duties require responding to calls that could put you in the middle of a violent situation, I have no problem with you (meaning any non-LEO) not having the same rules regarding force.

They probably should have just called the SWAT team in....

Quoted: They probably should have just called the SWAT team in....

better yet, how about an air strike?  Norfolk is close to Langley and Oceana....even better, why not a Ballistic Missile Strike...I am sure there are some Subs that come in and out of the Naval Base!.....continue to argue ad absurdum and all you do is come off as absurd...


Give me a break...this is not a case of police harassing a dude just hanging out...they had a citizen complaint, and they responded to investigate it, with two officers responding with their weapons drawn for a report of a complaint involving one armed man...

Quoted: ....continue to argue ad absurdum and all you do is come off as absurd...

Ironically, as I read your "walls of text" this was the very sentiment I found myself reaching for...

I think I've made it clear that I think calls to the PD for "a man with a gun" is where my problem lies.

The response from the PD is simply a symptom of a problem, not the actual problem.

The cops responded as they felt was necessary.  Maybe I would have done the same.

Fact is, there probably wouldn't have even been a phone call in South Boston, Woodstock, Raphine, Stuarts Draft or many other places in the Commonwealth where people haven't been brainwashed to believe that only cops should, or can, have guns.

That's the real problem, now isn't it??  Absent a phone call, we have no confrontation.  Absent an ignorant guard, we have no innocent citizens being drawn down upon.

I know, I know...

We'll now get another wall of text, recounting all sorts of overdramatized what-if's & could-have-beens.  Fact is, the guy wasn't casing the joint, and wasn't doing a single thing illegal.

It's shameful that people can just drop a dime on someone and create all this drama over their insecurities.  A sad, sad society indeed.

Quoted: Give me a break...this is not a case of police harassing a dude just hanging out...

If you read {listened} as well as you typed {talked}, you might have seen that I don't view this as "police harassment".

I'm looking at the underlying problem.  Not this symptom of the problem.

Each of my responses has been centered on the REAL problem:  The general citizen's ignorance of our gun laws & gun rights.

Maybe you have my responses confused with someone else's.

Quoted: Quoted: Give me a break...this is not a case of police harassing a dude just hanging out... If you read {listened} as well as you typed {talked}, you might have seen that I don't view this as "police harassment". I'm looking at the underlying problem.  Not this symptom of the problem. Each of my responses has been centered on the REAL problem:  The general citizen's ignorance of our gun laws & gun rights. Maybe you have my responses confused with someone else's.

Then I must (have you confused, that is), your response sounded (to me) like (yet) another attack on the police response to situation...

If that is not the case, than I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant.  Given the tone of the last two pages of this post, though, I believe my misunderstanding is at least forgivable, no?

As far as general public attitude towards open carry, you and I could not be in greater agreement...it TRULY is the greatest culprit....I cannot say that a greater understanding would have prevented this incident (because I do not have the security guard's story)...but I would imagine it certainly would go a long way...

Quoted: ...this is not a case of police harassing a dude just hanging out...they had a citizen complaint...

So, a citizen complaint about legal activity is sufficient for reasonable articulable suspicion of illegal activity?

Quoted: I cannot say that a greater understanding would have prevented this incident (because I do not have the security guard's story)...but I would imagine it certainly would go a long way...

Yep, it only takes one window licker to get the PD fired up.  Which is a whole other problem, as I think DrMark is alluding to, or about to allude to....

Quoted: Quoted: ...this is not a case of police harassing a dude just hanging out...they had a citizen complaint... So, a citizen complaint about legal activity is sufficient for reasonable articulable suspicion of illegal activity?

How do the cops know it was legal activity?

Quoted: How do the cops know it was legal activity?

I think this is where the problem is.  For the most part, they don't know what the laws are.  I mean, hell... who does these days?

Quoted: Quoted: How do the cops know it was legal activity? I think this is where the problem is.  For the most part, they don't know what the laws are.  I mean, hell... who does these days?

A fair point to be sure, but I was more referencing once they get a call from police dispatch to respond to a 911 call about a "man with a gun near a bank"...

How, based on that, are the cops on the way to the scene supposed to determine, in their vehicle, whether or not the person they are approaching is engaged in legal activity or illegal activity?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ...this is not a case of police harassing a dude just hanging out...they had a citizen complaint... So, a citizen complaint about legal activity is sufficient for reasonable articulable suspicion of illegal activity? How do the cops know it was legal activity?

You avoided answering the question.  

They won't know, for certain, unless they forcibly detain the person and investigate.  That's true in any situation.  

When I call 911 because of the black guy in my neighborhood, how will the police know he's simply reading gas meters and not the burglar I suspected?  Lacking any observable evidence of illegal activity, they should drawn down on him, run his records, and tell him not to ever come back to the neighborhood?  You're fine with that?

Or should they observe that he's not doing anything indicating illegal activity, perhaps have a friendly consensual chat with him, and "Sorry to bother you, have a nice day" to him?

Again, with the guy standing on a street with a gun in a holster (all completely legal), there's no observable evidence of illegal activity.  Is a citizen complaint about legal activity sufficient for "reasonable articulable suspicion" of illegal activity?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ...this is not a case of police harassing a dude just hanging out...they had a citizen complaint... So, a citizen complaint about legal activity is sufficient for reasonable articulable suspicion of illegal activity? How do the cops know it was legal activity? You avoided answering the question.   They won't know, for certain, unless they forcibly detain the person and investigate.  That's true in any situation.   When I call 911 because of the black guy in my neighborhood, how will the police know he's simply reading gas meters and not the burglar I suspected?  Lacking any observable evidence of illegal activity, they should drawn down on him, run his records, and tell him not to ever come back to the neighborhood?  You're fine with that? Or should they observe that he's not doing anything indicating illegal activity, perhaps have a friendly consensual chat with him, and "Sorry to bother you, have a nice day" to him? Again, with the guy standing on a street with a gun in a holster (all completely legal), there's no observable evidence of illegal activity.  Is a citizen complaint about legal activity sufficient for "reasonable articulable suspicion" of illegal activity?

Again, we have no clue what the 911 call involved....

If the call said...

"there is a guy standing on the street with a gun in a holster" and the cops responded how they did I am with you 100%

if the call said

"there is an armed man across the street from my bank that has been standing there for 5 minutes staring through the windows and my tellers have noticed him 3 times and are getting really nervous and I have now walked by him and he is definitely armed and I am worried he is getting ready to come in and rob the bank..."

well, now that probably requires a bit of a different response dont you think?

its what I have tried to say from the beginning, we have 1 side of a 3 sided story.....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ...this is not a case of police harassing a dude just hanging out...they had a citizen complaint... So, a citizen complaint about legal activity is sufficient for reasonable articulable suspicion of illegal activity? How do the cops know it was legal activity? You avoided answering the question.   They won't know, for certain, unless they forcibly detain the person and investigate.  That's true in any situation.   When I call 911 because of the black guy in my neighborhood, how will the police know he's simply reading gas meters and not the burglar I suspected?  Lacking any observable evidence of illegal activity, they should drawn down on him, run his records, and tell him not to ever come back to the neighborhood?  You're fine with that? Or should they observe that he's not doing anything indicating illegal activity, perhaps have a friendly consensual chat with him, and "Sorry to bother you, have a nice day" to him? Again, with the guy standing on a street with a gun in a holster (all completely legal), there's no observable evidence of illegal activity.  Is a citizen complaint about legal activity sufficient for "reasonable articulable suspicion" of illegal activity? Again, we have no clue what the 911 call involved.... If the call said... "there is a guy standing on the street with a gun in a holster" and the cops responded how they did I am with you 100% if the call said "there is an armed man across the street from my bank that has been standing there for 5 minutes staring through the windows and my tellers have noticed him 3 times and are getting really nervous and I have now walked by him and he is definitely armed and I am worried he is getting ready to come in and rob the bank..." well, now that probably requires a bit of a different response dont you think? its what I have tried to say from the beginning, we have 1 side of a 3 sided story.....

So, a citizen complaint about legal activity is sufficient for "reasonable articulable suspicion" of illegal activity?