Question of the Day: Do The Cops Know You’re A Gun Owner? - Page 7
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 78

Thread: Question of the Day: Do The Cops Know You’re A Gun Owner?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sepra Peratus/Arkansas
    Posts
    1,638
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    You get a call of a woman screaming at the Joe Smith residence. You get information from dispatch that Joe Smith has purchased 5 handguns in the last 2 years from retail delears. Based upon that information, do you increase your awareness/response? If you do increase your awareness/response - then that means conversely that you have less awareness/response without that information. THAT, in my humble opinion is what will get the officer injured or killed. Does the knowledge that Joe Smith has lawfully purchased firearms in the past really tell you anything about the situation at Joe Smith's house? NO. Having the knowledge of lawful firearms purchases, imho, is an extremely false and thin security blanket that offers no real security at all, especially if the officers are changing their response/level of awareness based only on that information.

    Maybe, the one instance where I see that it might be considered is if it is reported that Joe Smith very recently purchased a firearm, and now there is a report of a woman screaming.

    It's kind of like the inform or not argument during a traffic stop. Should the officer be more relaxed and less stressed because I tell them about a gun and show them a permit? In my humble opinion, absolutely not. Are you just going to take my word for it that the driver's license I am showing you is valid? No officer that I have ever known does. So why would you make the same assumption just because a person tells you about a gun and shows you a permit? What are you going to do if you leave the gun with the stopped driver, then go back and find out their permit is revoked/expired/not valid for some reason?
    This is why I would want to know
    WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. — Family Services of Winston-Salem believes recent shootings involving area law enforcement officers responding to domestic violence calls is further proof that domestic violence is a serious problem impacting the entire community.
    Just this week a Dobson Police officer was shot twice early Monday. Officer Brian Thomas and is recovering at home.
    Thursday, Watagua County Deputy William Mast was shot to death after responding to a domestic violence related call.
    According to “Police Chief” the magazine, an officer is injured in one out of every three domestic violence related calls.
    DeWanna Hamlin of Family Services in Winston-Salem thinks domestic violence calls are some of the most dangerous officers respond to because of the unperceived dangers.
    “I think it is the unknown. Not knowing what to expect, not knowing what weapons are going to be involved, and not knowing who is behind those closed doors,” said Hamlin.
    Recent Federal Statistics show since 1996, roughly 100 officers in the United States were killed responding to domestic violence related calls. Hundreds more were injured.
    “When the abuser feels like he or she is losing power or control over the situation that is generally when see more serious domestic violence or explosion so to speak,” said Hamlin.
    Sadly, Hamlin and other domestic violence experts believe most of the deaths related to domestic violence could be prevented if people better understood the warning signs and were willing to report it.
    ”Even when there is not a history of involvement with law enforcement, generally the assault we hear about is not the first time domestic violence has happened,” said Hamlin.
    Domestic violence calls often dangerous for law enforcement | MyFOX8.com
    ~Responsible people who understand that their personal protection is up to them, provide themselves with protection. Those that don't have only themselves to blame.~Proud NRA ~SAF~GoA Member~

  2.   
  3. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by gejoslin View Post
    Sadly, Hamlin and other domestic violence experts believe most of the deaths related to domestic violence could be prevented if people better understood the warning signs and were willing to report it
    They don't report it for the same reason as a person convicted 3 times for minor posession in some states faces a mandatory minimum sentence. Dumb-a$$ laws that remove common sense from the legal system. In most places every DV call will result in someone going to jail. If a cop shows up, calms down the situation, and everyone kisses and makes up, someone is still going to the pokey. If it turns out that the "violence" was just a verbal argument over which way a toilet paper roll is installed, with no violence other than raised voices, someone is going to jail.
    -
    I say that our justice system, from the street cop to the district attourney, needs a little latitude to apply common sense. They still need oversight, just not hand-holding. I think people are increasingly apprehensive about getting the cops involved. The article didn't mention what percentage of DV calls were made by one of the participants, or a 3rd party, I would think that 3rd party calls would usually be made after the situation is beyond calm resolution. That compared to those with a resultant LEO injury or death would be an interesting study.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by gejoslin View Post
    This is why I would want to know
    WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. — Family Services of Winston-Salem believes recent shootings involving area law enforcement officers responding to domestic violence calls is further proof that domestic violence is a serious problem impacting the entire community.
    Just this week a Dobson Police officer was shot twice early Monday. Officer Brian Thomas and is recovering at home.
    Thursday, Watagua County Deputy William Mast was shot to death after responding to a domestic violence related call.
    According to “Police Chief” the magazine, an officer is injured in one out of every three domestic violence related calls.
    DeWanna Hamlin of Family Services in Winston-Salem thinks domestic violence calls are some of the most dangerous officers respond to because of the unperceived dangers.
    “I think it is the unknown. Not knowing what to expect, not knowing what weapons are going to be involved, and not knowing who is behind those closed doors,” said Hamlin.
    Recent Federal Statistics show since 1996, roughly 100 officers in the United States were killed responding to domestic violence related calls. Hundreds more were injured.
    “When the abuser feels like he or she is losing power or control over the situation that is generally when see more serious domestic violence or explosion so to speak,” said Hamlin.
    Sadly, Hamlin and other domestic violence experts believe most of the deaths related to domestic violence could be prevented if people better understood the warning signs and were willing to report it.
    ”Even when there is not a history of involvement with law enforcement, generally the assault we hear about is not the first time domestic violence has happened,” said Hamlin.
    Domestic violence calls often dangerous for law enforcement | MyFOX8.com
    Would you not agree that officers are more likely to be injured or killed because they ASSUME the subjects are unarmed, rather than by not having information that the subjects have lawfully purchased firearms in the past? If a police officer approaches a domestic violence situation with more diligence and caution because they have information that the subjects have lawfully purchased firearms in the past - that police officer is a fool. Not because of the extra diligence and caution they exercise having that knowledge, but because of the lesser diligence and caution they exercise when they don't have that knowledge.

    Again, a database of who lawfully possesses firearms is a very thin false security blanket because it tells the officer absolutely nothing about the situation they are about to walk into.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  5. #64
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sepra Peratus/Arkansas
    Posts
    1,638
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Would you not agree that officers are more likely to be injured or killed because they ASSUME the subjects are unarmed, rather than by not having information that the subjects have lawfully purchased firearms in the past? If a police officer approaches a domestic violence situation with more diligence and caution because they have information that the subjects have lawfully purchased firearms in the past - that police officer is a fool. Not because of the extra diligence and caution they exercise having that knowledge, but because of the lesser diligence and caution they exercise when they don't have that knowledge.

    Again, a database of who lawfully possesses firearms is a very thin false security blanket because it tells the officer absolutely nothing about the situation they are about to walk into.
    Oh yeah, I agree. In order for an officer to go home at shifts end, they should go into every DV or any other incident like their life depends on it. Because it does. The more info that they can amass is going to give them a better chance for living thru the shift. DV's are just as detrimental to Police Officers life and well being as any confrontation, more so if the report I read is right . Nowadays they're in as much danger from the females as from the males. Heck the kids can dish the danger out with the best of them!
    They should go into a DV like it was the lull before any battle engagement.
    Last edited by gejoslin; 06-19-2013 at 12:38 PM. Reason: clarification
    ~Responsible people who understand that their personal protection is up to them, provide themselves with protection. Those that don't have only themselves to blame.~Proud NRA ~SAF~GoA Member~

  6. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    You get a call of a woman screaming at the Joe Smith residence. You get information from dispatch that Joe Smith has purchased 5 handguns in the last 2 years from retail delears. Based upon that information, do you increase your awareness/response? If you do increase your awareness/response - then that means conversely that you have less awareness/response without that information. THAT, in my humble opinion is what will get the officer injured or killed. Does the knowledge that Joe Smith has lawfully purchased firearms in the past really tell you anything about the situation at Joe Smith's house? NO. Having the knowledge of lawful firearms purchases, imho, is an extremely false and thin security blanket that offers no real security at all, especially if the officers are changing their response/level of awareness based only on that information.
    Knowing that Joe Smith has firearms is good information and beneficial to officers. Although officers need to be prepared for anyone to be armed, this information lets the officers know it is even more likely that this subject is armed and needs to be treated as such. The more you believe a person to be armed, the more you change your tactics. Officers can always assume everyone may pull out a gun, but knowing somebody has a gun is different.

    Information about subjects being armed can justify a change of tactics. If you assume everyone is carrying a gun and treat them all as such, you will probably end up pulling your gun on way too many innocent people to stay employed as a police officer.

  7. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Deserteagle View Post
    Knowing that Joe Smith has firearms is good information and beneficial to officers. Although officers need to be prepared for anyone to be armed, this information lets the officers know it is even more likely that this subject is armed and needs to be treated as such. The more you believe a person to be armed, the more you change your tactics. Officers can always assume everyone may pull out a gun, but knowing somebody has a gun is different.

    Information about subjects being armed can justify a change of tactics. If you assume everyone is carrying a gun and treat them all as such, you will probably end up pulling your gun on way too many innocent people to stay employed as a police officer.
    Not the way I was taught back in the 70s. You entered every DV situation as though a fight/gun fight was going to happen. And you, the officer, were going to be the target. From both sides. Statistics showed back then that there was a high rate of where both parties would turn on the officer who responded and normally two were dispatched for that reason.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified RSO
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly.

  8. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by whodat2710 View Post
    They don't report it for the same reason as a person convicted 3 times for minor posession in some states faces a mandatory minimum sentence. Dumb-a$$ laws that remove common sense from the legal system. In most places every DV call will result in someone going to jail. If a cop shows up, calms down the situation, and everyone kisses and makes up, someone is still going to the pokey. If it turns out that the "violence" was just a verbal argument over which way a toilet paper roll is installed, with no violence other than raised voices, someone is going to jail.
    -
    I say that our justice system, from the street cop to the district attourney, needs a little latitude to apply common sense. They still need oversight, just not hand-holding. I think people are increasingly apprehensive about getting the cops involved. The article didn't mention what percentage of DV calls were made by one of the participants, or a 3rd party, I would think that 3rd party calls would usually be made after the situation is beyond calm resolution. That compared to those with a resultant LEO injury or death would be an interesting study.
    The latitude was reduced because of dumb-ass PEOPLE in the LEGAL system who continually demonstrated a LACK of common sense.

    As far as alerting responding LE of weapons in the house, I agree with the previous posts. If they allow the advisories to heighten their awareness, they're heading for trouble. "Routine" gets you killed. As Robert Heinlein said, "Treat everyone with politeness and respect, but have a plan to kill them, just in case!"
    Lewis - NRA Life - Oregon Firearms Federation - National Assoc. for Gun Rights

    Gun control is NOT about guns, it's about CONTROL.

  9. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by S&W645 View Post
    Not the way I was taught back in the 70s. You entered every DV situation as though a fight/gun fight was going to happen. And you, the officer, were going to be the target. From both sides. Statistics showed back then that there was a high rate of where both parties would turn on the officer who responded and normally two were dispatched for that reason.
    Back in the 80s I was able to assist with some training for one of the local PDs. I got to play the bad guy. Both sides were armed with paint guns, and the bad guys got some rubber knives and other trinkets from time to time. Scenarios were laid out, but we were able to improvise, as well. Each exercise started with the premise that the LEO had just initiated a traffic stop. When you have no fear (whether its because its a game, or because you're a criminal that doesn't care) there are countless ways to push things over the edge. Since then I've understood why a cop is on high alert when he approaches that vehicle with the little old lady driving it.
    Lewis - NRA Life - Oregon Firearms Federation - National Assoc. for Gun Rights

    Gun control is NOT about guns, it's about CONTROL.

  10. #69
    Arizona, so I was informed, DPS are aware, they issue the permit. Local police and county I do not know but in the area I am in, the Scorpion Ranch, it is a good bet most are armed but a do not think the police would bet.
    "Undocumented Second Amendment Supporter, fighting against suppression of mandatory background checks."

  11. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,602
    Quote Originally Posted by K7lvo View Post
    Back in the 80s I was able to assist with some training for one of the local PDs. I got to play the bad guy. Both sides were armed with paint guns, and the bad guys got some rubber knives and other trinkets from time to time. Scenarios were laid out, but we were able to improvise, as well. Each exercise started with the premise that the LEO had just initiated a traffic stop. When you have no fear (whether its because its a game, or because you're a criminal that doesn't care) there are countless ways to push things over the edge. Since then I've understood why a cop is on high alert when he approaches that vehicle with the little old lady driving it.
    The little old lady and the beautiful blonde in a convertible were always the ones to watch out for. The movie, Shoot, Don't Shoot was one to make that point.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified RSO
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast