1st LEO Encounter While CCW'ing - Page 4
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 48

Thread: 1st LEO Encounter While CCW'ing

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fabulous Las Vegas
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by gdcleanfun View Post
    I've never owned either, of any manufacturer or caliber. I have a Colt 1911 .45, Barretta .9, Cobra, and some others, all of which have some type of safety. I though all firearms, made since somewhere in the '80s, had to have some type of safety. Are you referring to earlier manufactured dates or did I misread the gist of your sentence? Can you explain more your comment? Thanks.
    The Glock has 1 safety on it. It's on the trigger. Which when holstering if it was to snag on something could fire. The Xd's and XDm have that also, but the XD'sand XDm's have a grip safety much like your 1911. Having the 2nd safety when holstering if you keep your thumb on the back of the slide and off the grip safety is much safer and is less likely to have a accidental discharge. Like that cop in front of the kids.
    XDm 40 16+1+16+16

  2.   
  3. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Honolulu, HI & Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Sabotage70 View Post
    The Glock has 1 safety on it. It's on the trigger. Which when holstering if it was to snag on something could fire. The Xd's and XDm have that also, but the XD'sand XDm's have a grip safety much like your 1911. Having the 2nd safety when holstering if you keep your thumb on the back of the slide and off the grip safety is much safer and is less likely to have a accidental discharge. Like that cop in front of the kids.

    The Glock actually has 1 visible and 2 internal safety devices. It can be argued that additional safety devices, being mechanical devices, can actually contribute to the probability of an "accidental discharge". By definition, and "accidental discharge" (commonly known as an AD) is caused by a mechanical failure of the firearm. This would mean that the operator did nothing wrong when handling the firearm, and the firearm discharged (as in the trigger was not touched). A good example would be in the case of a firearm equipped with a decock device. The operator uses the decock lever with their finger off of the trigger, and the firearm discharges.

    A "negligent discharge" (commonly known as a ND) occurs when a firearm is discharged due to some kind of operator error. (as in the person handling the firearm touches the trigger). In 99.9999% of the cases I've seen, what some thought was a "AD" was actually a "ND" after further examination.

    Any time a loaded firearm is handled, human error comes into play and the probability of a ND rises greatly. It's best to keep your firearm holstered unless absolutely necessary. In most cases, LE should not be disarming law abiding citizens. If the firearm does need to be secured by the LEO for whatever reason, all handling should be done by the LEO, and not the person being disarmed. I'd much prefer the LEO to leave well enough alone, as in the stops I've experienced while armed. The LEO simply requests me to keep my hands visible and not make any sudden moves once it was established that I was legally carrying.



    gf
    "A few well placed shots with a .22LR is a lot better than a bunch of solid misses with a .44 mag!" Glock Armorer, NRA Chief RSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Muzzleloading Rifle, Muzzleloading Shotgun, and Home Firearm Safety Training Counselor

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe Area, New Mexico
    Posts
    3,487
    In SC it's the law if a LOE identifies themselves as a LOE your required to inform that you are CC. I've yet to have a encounter but if memory serves me right, most are good guys and on presenting proper credentials with extreme caution the sitution should de-escalate. IF NOT, follow all directives given and fight about procedures later. Having to explain where or who I've been seeing and or where I'm going is not in anyway underminding my cival rights BUT once my credintials are established questioning should stop. Again, file a complait AFTER the FACT.

  5. Many years ago, when I had several LEO's as close friends. Our Hunting campfire was story telling time. The methods used for stopping 'suspected' BG's were shared. Surprising how many BG's were caught by these seemingly strange methods. As a result, the local area was surprisingly crime free, in comparison to times that followed. CCW has helped in deterrence of attacks on individuals (possibility of a CCW increases).

    Career, Violent, Repeat Offenders, roaming among Law Abiding Society, are an anomaly seen only in the Lawyer infested and Governed USA. Our Freedom is still unequaled in the world. Our Freedom and our Security are always hanging in balance. Fortunately our elected Law makers are often Concealed Carry Citizens as well. Reality needs only to be brought to their attention at election time. Would not trade it for anything.

  6. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    Having to explain where or who I've been seeing and or where I'm going is not in anyway underminding my cival rights
    Methinks you don't understand your civil rights or have accepted there removal.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fabulous Las Vegas
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock Fan View Post
    The Glock actually has 1 visible and 2 internal safety devices. It can be argued that additional safety devices, being mechanical devices, can actually contribute to the probability of an "accidental discharge". By definition, and "accidental discharge" (commonly known as an AD) is caused by a mechanical failure of the firearm. This would mean that the operator did nothing wrong when handling the firearm, and the firearm discharged (as in the trigger was not touched). A good example would be in the case of a firearm equipped with a decock device. The operator uses the decock lever with their finger off of the trigger, and the firearm discharges.

    A "negligent discharge" (commonly known as a ND) occurs when a firearm is discharged due to some kind of operator error. (as in the person handling the firearm touches the trigger). In 99.9999% of the cases I've seen, what some thought was a "AD" was actually a "ND" after further examination.

    Any time a loaded firearm is handled, human error comes into play and the probability of a ND rises greatly. It's best to keep your firearm holstered unless absolutely necessary. In most cases, LE should not be disarming law abiding citizens. If the firearm does need to be secured by the LEO for whatever reason, all handling should be done by the LEO, and not the person being disarmed. I'd much prefer the LEO to leave well enough alone, as in the stops I've experienced while armed. The LEO simply requests me to keep my hands visible and not make any sudden moves once it was established that I was legally carrying.



    gf
    I was going to say ND but for some reason I didn't.

    I year ago when I took my CCW class. The instructor told us when getting pulled over to put our hands on the steering wheel and tell them I have a FIREARM, not a gun because when they hear gun they can get a little freaked. But later I found that we don't legally have to tell them.
    Then I asked if having a gun in the car gives up our right to a search and everyone in the class looked at me like I was crazy. With one of the older guys in there for a renewal made the comment "That could end all bad"
    XDm 40 16+1+16+16

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock Fan View Post
    The Glock actually has 1 visible and 2 internal safety devices...
    Thanks, gf, I thought so but wasn't sure.

  9. #38
    I believe that the XDs are the same as the Glocks for internal safety.

  10. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Western Iowa
    Posts
    60

    An LEO encounter of a different sort...

    I'm newer to the forum, getting ready to train and get my own CCP and read through this post for info; very good overall info and I enjoyed seeing all the sides of this issue. I had one LEO encounter myself that might inform the debate a little more. One clarification in advance, this LEO encounter does NOT involve a weapon of any kind (good thing too because it was in IL).

    I and my sister were returning home from college for a holiday (different colleges but I agreed to pick her up on my way home). We were driving through the night and stopped in a more rural area of IL to switch drivers, this could have been in the neighborhood of 2-3am so that alone can imply suspicion I guess. I didn't end up getting a ticket, the cop just told me to pull farther off the road next time (on an I-State on ramp, wouldn't have been blocking traffic had their been any). At the end of the stop he asked to see ppwk as usual. Due to switching drivers I asked him if he wanted to see mine or my sister's license. His reply is the focus of my post, he stated that it didn't matter who's license he saw, he was supposed to see a license before he let us go per procedure. Some LEO agencies may have policies like that (right or wrong) others may not; in light of that I find it interesting that some are surprised that officers ask for info even after they know there's no offense and others do not. It may be a differing agency policy and that can vary w/in States between state plolice, city cops and different county Sheriffs offices. I find it interesting that we all discuss some legal issues as though it could/should all be the same even though we're all from different states that to a certain level are allowed to have different ways of handling the same thing.

    Just my 2 cents but what do I know I'm a noob

  11. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by chroode View Post
    As soon as he said that your plate lights were good, he lost probable cause for the stop. ANY further inquiry was illegal. I would make a formal complaint against him.

    If he lied about his initial reason for the stop, what else will he lie about in the interest of justice. Report him!!!
    I agree with this statement.

    As a supervisory LEO myself I can attest that complaints do get heard. Now don't think that one complaint against an officer will get him reprimanded. But a history of several complaints will get attention. Every officer on the force has at least one complaint against them, the majority of them are people being spiteful for getting a ticket.

    But the situation as described above was flat out unconstitutional.

    You did the right thing though and be compliant, on the street an officer will win every time. In the courthouse is a different manner altogether.
    -Austin

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

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