Interesting/Confusing LEO encounter my son had

[RRobaldo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[sheepdogjmanz]

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

[amsgator]

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

[Firefighterchen]

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

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

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

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

[RRobaldo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RRobaldo]

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

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

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

[NavyLCDR]

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

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

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


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

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

[localgirl]

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

[NavyLCDR]

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

ABSOLUTELY! Very well said!

[SGB]

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