Hypothetically speaking

[Dave70968]

I'd say do whatever that police officer needs to do to feel safe. It's ultimately his life he has on the line.

And, y'know, the lives of the "civilians" who didn't volunteer for dangerous duty.

Apropos of nothing, http://reason.com/blog/2011/03/10/da-issues-report-on-the-eurie

 

[EFsDad]

And one of the men detained was a licensed PI who also had a concealed carry license, one was former SWAT and the other owned the house.

When you say former, are you meaning like the guy retired from SWAT or did he get terminated from SWAT for stealing guns, cause that might change my answer too. Oh and I am a leo but not an LEO.

 

[ExSniper]

And, y'know, the lives of the "civilians" who didn't volunteer for dangerous duty.

Apropos of nothing, http://reason.com/blog/2011/03/10/da-issues-report-on-the-eurie

These are two different issues. Most of this thread is talking about an officer being perhaps overly cautious but the blog you linked is about an officer who it sounds like was very negligent in the performance of his duties. Which would you prefer, overly cautious or negligently reckless?

 

[Dave70968]

Actually, I'd prefer you read the article carefully. To wit:

The argument here is not to start putting police in prison for making honest mistakes under incredibly difficult circumstances. The argument is to stop creating those circumstances when it isn't absolutely necessary. Short of that, we're once again left with this: An innocent, unarmed man was shot dead by a cop.

That "overly cautious" attitude is what led to using a SWAT team and a flash-bang--a military device--for a simple arrest warrant, without even verifying that the suspect was even present. The "officer safety uber alles" attitude gets innocent, uninvolved people killed in the name of protecting the people who volunteered/I] for the dangerous duty.

This thread seems to be about the same topic: we've identified that the three people in question were in a place that they had a right to be, and that they were carrying arms within the bounds of the law. Nonetheless, we have multiple people advocating that they be treated as felons: "proned out," held at the point of a "long gun," "cuff[ed]...," and this is after they've been cleared.

And as long as we're on the subject, police officers shoot innocent people 11% of the time; private citizens shoot innocent people 2% of the time*. Statistically, it seems like the three innocent private citizens ought to be disarming the officer, not vice-versa, if safety is our goal.


* Source: November 15, 1993, issue of Newsweek, as reported at http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum...slation-discussion/957-guns-untold-story.html (and pretty much everywhere else on the internet)

 

[HMFIC]

What would that have to do with the way the officer would handle the 3 guys?

OK, I'll play your game.

For instance: What if he found a dead guy inside... ? That would dramatically change the way he handled the three guys with guns standing outside wouldn't it?

Everything that happened could be relevent to how the officer acted. So I'm just trying to make an informed opinion.

 

[Republicanhack]

You guys are over thinking this question, reread the original post. The officer handled the initial contact in a logical and thoughtful manner, he treated everyone involved in a very friendly and professional manner. There is nothing but a simple answer to all of this and that is in the poll.

 

[doctorjj]

Actually, I'd prefer you read the article carefully. To wit:

That "overly cautious" attitude is what led to using a SWAT team and a flash-bang--a military device--for a simple arrest warrant, without even verifying that the suspect was even present. The "officer safety uber alles" attitude gets innocent, uninvolved people killed in the name of protecting the people who volunteered/I] for the dangerous duty.

This thread seems to be about the same topic: we've identified that the three people in question were in a place that they had a right to be, and that they were carrying arms within the bounds of the law. Nonetheless, we have multiple people advocating that they be treated as felons: "proned out," held at the point of a "long gun," "cuff[ed]...," and this is after they've been cleared.

And as long as we're on the subject, police officers shoot innocent people 11% of the time; private citizens shoot innocent people 2% of the time*. Statistically, it seems like the three innocent private citizens ought to be disarming the officer, not vice-versa, if safety is our goal.


* Source: November 15, 1993, issue of Newsweek, as reported at http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum...slation-discussion/957-guns-untold-story.html (and pretty much everywhere else on the internet)

I like this answer!!!

 

[Republicanhack]

He did not check and find out everyone was good. He checked and found out everyone was from the neighborhood and perhaps he even checked and verified there were no outstanding warrants for the arrest of these three guys. A quick look at an ID and a call to dispatch does not give the LEO a guarantee that the people are who they say they are or what is their criminal record/intent.
All he knows driving up is that possible criminal activity has been reported at this address. Three guys with guns will quickly be looking down the barrel of one of my long guns I carry in the patrol car. How we proceeed next depends on how they respond and how much back-up I have, nothing else will happen until I have some back-up on scene, so just expect to keep looking down the barrel of my AR.
Running the serial numbers is a minute or two on a radio and computer, not a huge waste of time or resources and may uncover that the 3 guys are not who and what they pretend to be.
Just because someone has ID, an SDA permit, and lives in the neighborhood does not make them automatically a good guy. What if these three guys are a jilted, abusive ex-husband who is under a protective order to stay away from his ex-wife and his two best buds/neighbors who think she done him wrong? They would have ID and a reasonable sounding story but still be participating in criminal conduct. Too many variables.
Does not matter who you are or what training you have had in the past, the officer does not know that when he/she arrives on scene and for their own safety they better keep a close eye on everyone and proceed with caution based on their skill and training.

As to the other situation of letting a neighbor back you up as you check all around a house, that is a big NO GO! For all the same reasons! We do not know who you are or what are your intentions. Much safer for me, you, and everyone else not to get you involved. Don't be offended, there are LEOs I know that I won't let back me up either. We will wait till more and better help arrives.

Not a bit of that makes a lick of sense, if he called them in and they were clear he would know that none of them had a protective order against them. Right? Or is there a super secret way to read the subjects mind to find that out? He didn't just check to see where everyone lived and look at an ID. How would running the numbers prove that the 3 guys may or may not be who they say they are? One of them could have bought his gun off this site and it could have been stolen. Does that automatically make him someone nefarious?

The original post had nothing to do with what the officers response should have been when he got the call. The officer in question must have known that everyone was good to go or he wouldn't have acted the way he did after dispatch called him back and said the 3 individuals were clear. His backup when it arrived didn't seem to think they were walking into Baghdad either as no one was looking down the barrel of anyones AR.

Why does this keep getting off topic? I don't care if someone would have called in air support and rolled APCs in before they proceded the original question was about the proper thing to do AFTER the 3 subjects were cleared

 

[Republicanhack]

OK, I'll play your game.

For instance: What if he found a dead guy inside... ? That would dramatically change the way he handled the three guys with guns standing outside wouldn't it?

Everything that happened could be relevent to how the officer acted. So I'm just trying to make an informed opinion.

IF he found a dead guy in the house it would have changed the entire situation


He didn't

 

[HMFIC]

IF he found a dead guy in the house it would have changed the entire situation


He didn't

I re-read the original post and based on that limited information I would have detained and then tried to get to the bottom of what was going on with respect to the house and what you three rambo's were doing. I wouldn't have wasted time running serial numbers on firearms. IF there was something else that happened to cause me to wonder what was going on then I might take it further at that point.

But I'm not LE so my opinion probably doesn't matter.

IF you're only upset about him running the numbers, what do you think caused him to do it? Was there more that he said or did that adds to it?