LEO response to MWAG call

Use this forum to post your experience with encounters with law enforcement, criminals, or other encounters as a result of your firearm or potential to be carrying one.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Re: LEO response to MWAG call

Post by MyWifeSaidYes »

Shutterbug57 wrote:
MyWifeSaidYes wrote: ...

I've always said that I want the police to respond to MWAG calls, but that they do not all need to be felony takedowns.

What would everyone recommend that the first officer have done differently, knowing the information he had available to him?
MWSY - I hear what you are saying, but the only thing the officer has RAS for was knowing the guy and possibly 2 guys were armed. He did not have anything, unless I missed it somewhere, that indicated they had, were in the process of or were about to commit a crime. I get being cautious, but I don't get the felony takedown approach when the only thing he knew about the guy(s) was that he/they were conducting a lawful activity.

Using your "you do not know their intentions" statement could be read to say that you understand why a cop would do a felony takedown on an OCer walking down the sidewalk, but I do not believe that is something you would condone. Yet, in the case under discussion, the cop knew as much about techguy as he would about the OCer walking down the sidewalk. He knew both are armed and presumably both have loaded their weapons. Sorry, I think the cop should have used the cover of his car if he had to stop the guys when he did or waited until the backup arrived. If we accept that the felony takedown for simply carrying is in any way normal, it will become normal.
Re-read the last two lines of my post. You are correct that I do NOT condone the choice of a felony take-down in this instance, but I actually want to know how others think the cop should have responded.

Also, there was no information given by the 911 caller about the driver of the car. The officer could only assume that if one individual was armed, his 'partner' would be armed, too.
MyWifeSaidYes
User avatar
Shutterbug57
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:09 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: LEO response to MWAG call

Post by Shutterbug57 »

MyWifeSaidYes wrote:
Shutterbug57 wrote:
MyWifeSaidYes wrote: ...

I've always said that I want the police to respond to MWAG calls, but that they do not all need to be felony takedowns.

What would everyone recommend that the first officer have done differently, knowing the information he had available to him?
MWSY - I hear what you are saying, but the only thing the officer has RAS for was knowing the guy and possibly 2 guys were armed. He did not have anything, unless I missed it somewhere, that indicated they had, were in the process of or were about to commit a crime. I get being cautious, but I don't get the felony takedown approach when the only thing he knew about the guy(s) was that he/they were conducting a lawful activity.

Using your "you do not know their intentions" statement could be read to say that you understand why a cop would do a felony takedown on an OCer walking down the sidewalk, but I do not believe that is something you would condone. Yet, in the case under discussion, the cop knew as much about techguy as he would about the OCer walking down the sidewalk. He knew both are armed and presumably both have loaded their weapons. Sorry, I think the cop should have used the cover of his car if he had to stop the guys when he did or waited until the backup arrived. If we accept that the felony takedown for simply carrying is in any way normal, it will become normal.
Re-read the last two lines of my post. You are correct that I do NOT condone the choice of a felony take-down in this instance, but I actually want to know how others think the cop should have responded.

Also, there was no information given by the 911 caller about the driver of the car. The officer could only assume that if one individual was armed, his 'partner' would be armed, too.
I gave my opinion on what the cop should have done - use his car as cover and address the guys if he had to move on them prior to backup arriving. I think he, as all cops always are, right to be concerned for his safety, but he showed a total disregard for the safety of members of the public whom he had absolutely no RAS to think had, were about to or were committing any criminal activity, i.e., he over-reacted.

I am not sure where the us versus them mentality started in the ranks of cops, but it is plainly visible in today's environment. There is a perception that cops rights are superior to those of the rest of the population and, somehow, their right to go home at the end of the day supersedes that of everyone else. Somehow they have more of a right to not have a gun shoved in their face than the rest of the law-abiding population. There is a balance between these competing rights, the rights of the cop and the rights of the law-abiding public. I, personally, think that this balance is out of balance at the present time and see nothing moving to right the balance. It does seem that the statement "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet." has moved from the battlefield to our public streets. Just my $0.02.
Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Castro, Pol Pot: All these monsters began by confiscating private arms, then litterally soaking the earth with the blood of tens of millions of their people. Ah, the joys of gun control. - Charlton Heston 11 Sept 97
User avatar
FlyinCedar
Posts: 1755
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:07 am
Location: Kenton, OH

Re: LEO response to MWAG call

Post by FlyinCedar »

So it seems that in your mind, he should just roll up and start a conversation, and hope he's faster on the draw than whomever he is approaching. Techguy already stated that he has a nervous habit of moving his hands, and he could have easily made a movement that appeared to be toward his gun.

I have a great idea. Cops should walk around with ice cream and bubble gum, and give that out first upon contacting anyone. I'm sure it would diffuse a lot of situations, and make criminals think twice.

You guys all are about how wrong he was, because it was Techguy, and not someone meaning harm. I feel that you would have a totally different story had it been someone actually trying to cause harm, but was stopped in this manner by the cop. That situation would be nothing but a passing conversation here on this forum. The difference, is he didn't know either way, and you're all bent out of shape because it turned out in the end not to be a shooter this time. Of course, he didn't know that. He only knew there was a man loading/holstering a gun in obvious plain view of the public, headed into Target, and had at least one other person with them, very possibly armed, as he was not the driver.
Javelin Man
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 7481
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Sandusky County

Re: LEO response to MWAG call

Post by Javelin Man »

FlyinCedar wrote:So it seems that in your mind, he should just roll up and start a conversation, and hope he's faster on the draw than whomever he is approaching. Techguy already stated that he has a nervous habit of moving his hands, and he could have easily made a movement that appeared to be toward his gun.

I have a great idea. Cops should walk around with ice cream and bubble gum, and give that out first upon contacting anyone. I'm sure it would diffuse a lot of situations, and make criminals think twice.

You guys all are about how wrong he was, because it was Techguy, and not someone meaning harm. I feel that you would have a totally different story had it been someone actually trying to cause harm, but was stopped in this manner by the cop. That situation would be nothing but a passing conversation here on this forum. The difference, is he didn't know either way, and you're all bent out of shape because it turned out in the end not to be a shooter this time. Of course, he didn't know that. He only knew there was a man loading/holstering a gun in obvious plain view of the public, headed into Target, and had at least one other person with them, very possibly armed, as he was not the driver.
As I recall, Techguy was coming OUT of Target with his partner in a casual fashion. No security alarms had been rung, no calls of armed encounters of any kind. Officer Un-Friendly certainly wasn't going to stop any robbery inside the store and there was no robbery to investigate.

The 5-0 reacted poorly and jeapordized many lives by drawing his firearm. If he felt that threatened, he should have had his AR trained on the pair and called for the SWAT team for backup.
Famous last words: "I just drank What?!-Socrates

bruh bruh is slang for "complete and total moron" -sodbuster95

The following is a list of children's books that didn't quite make it to the printing press...
1. What Is That Dog Doing to That Other Dog?
2. Daddy Drinks Because You Cry
3. You Were An Accident
4. Bi-Curious George
User avatar
Werz
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 5506
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:37 am

Re: LEO response to MWAG call

Post by Werz »

Javelin Man wrote:
FlyinCedar wrote:So it seems that in your mind, he should just roll up and start a conversation, and hope he's faster on the draw than whomever he is approaching. Techguy already stated that he has a nervous habit of moving his hands, and he could have easily made a movement that appeared to be toward his gun.

I have a great idea. Cops should walk around with ice cream and bubble gum, and give that out first upon contacting anyone. I'm sure it would diffuse a lot of situations, and make criminals think twice.

You guys all are about how wrong he was, because it was Techguy, and not someone meaning harm. I feel that you would have a totally different story had it been someone actually trying to cause harm, but was stopped in this manner by the cop. That situation would be nothing but a passing conversation here on this forum. The difference, is he didn't know either way, and you're all bent out of shape because it turned out in the end not to be a shooter this time. Of course, he didn't know that. He only knew there was a man loading/holstering a gun in obvious plain view of the public, headed into Target, and had at least one other person with them, very possibly armed, as he was not the driver.
As I recall, Techguy was coming OUT of Target with his partner in a casual fashion. No security alarms had been rung, no calls of armed encounters of any kind. Officer Un-Friendly certainly wasn't going to stop any robbery inside the store and there was no robbery to investigate.

The 5-0 reacted poorly and jeapordized many lives by drawing his firearm. If he felt that threatened, he should have had his AR trained on the pair and called for the SWAT team for backup.
Or maybe, just maybe, the possibility exists that incidents such as this are bound to happen in the real world with nobody being clearly wrong. Maybe there are actions which are perfectly lawful, but when conducted in public view and under the right circumstances, are bound to arouse suspicions. Maybe there are reactions by peace officers which seem extreme and are frightening, but when viewed in light of all the circumstances, are cautious and not unreasonable.

Yes, we all play in the Magical Land of Gun Forums® where it's either dragons or unicorns, and where bright-line rules are laid out by those who have da oh are see at the top of their browser bookmarks with favorable case law tidbits from every gun blog known to man. But those of us who actually work in this reality on a daily basis know that the world is a lot more gray.

I have met techguy85 and have communicated with him enough to conclude that he is an intelligent and reasonable person. I sympathize with his circumstances in this matter.

I do not know the peace officer involved. However, I know many peace officers; I know what their jobs involve; and I am frequently called upon to explain and justify their actions. They are often required to make serious decisions based on incomplete information, under limited time constraints, and without consultation. Given all the circumstances, it is difficult to condemn this officer's reaction, as imperfect as it may have been.

Feel free to flame away.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
"Remember that protecting our gun rights still boils down to keeping a majority in the electorate, and that our daily activities can have the impact of being ambassadors for the gun culture ..."
-- BobK
Open carry is a First Amendment exercise.
techguy85
Posts: 1332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:55 am
Location: Columbus

Re: LEO response to MWAG call

Post by techguy85 »

Werz wrote: Or maybe, just maybe, the possibility exists that incidents such as this are bound to happen in the real world with nobody being clearly wrong. Maybe there are actions which are perfectly lawful, but when conducted in public view and under the right circumstances, are bound to arouse suspicions. Maybe there are reactions by peace officers which seem extreme and are frightening, but when viewed in light of all the circumstances, are cautious and not unreasonable.

Yes, we all play in the Magical Land of Gun Forums® where it's either dragons or unicorns, and where bright-line rules are laid out by those who have da oh are see at the top of their browser bookmarks with favorable case law tidbits from every gun blog known to man. But those of us who actually work in this reality on a daily basis know that the world is a lot more gray.

I have met techguy85 and have communicated with him enough to conclude that he is an intelligent and reasonable person. I sympathize with his circumstances in this matter.

I do not know the peace officer involved. However, I know many peace officers; I know what their jobs involve; and I am frequently called upon to explain and justify their actions. They are often required to make serious decisions based on incomplete information, under limited time constraints, and without consultation. Given all the circumstances, it is difficult to condemn this officer's reaction, as imperfect as it may have been.

Feel free to flame away.
I lean toward this opinion. Do I believe there was a better way to handle this, yes I do. However, it is all too easy for us to see things from only one point of view. I have enough awareness to know that the way I see it is through the perspective of my own situation, and that I'm far from being impartial.
I've spent far more time thinking about this than it probably deserves, and even though I don't like what happened, and still feel that it was a bit over the top, I can't condemn what the officer did either.
User avatar
Shutterbug57
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:09 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: LEO response to MWAG call

Post by Shutterbug57 »

techguy85 wrote:I lean toward this opinion. Do I believe there was a better way to handle this, yes I do. However, it is all too easy for us to see things from only one point of view. I have enough awareness to know that the way I see it is through the perspective of my own situation, and that I'm far from being impartial.
I've spent far more time thinking about this than it probably deserves, and even though I don't like what happened, and still feel that it was a bit over the top, I can't condemn what the officer did either.
I hear you, but if we accept a felony takedown every time a cop knows someone has a gun, but has no further indication of anything illegal being done, where does that leave us?
Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Castro, Pol Pot: All these monsters began by confiscating private arms, then litterally soaking the earth with the blood of tens of millions of their people. Ah, the joys of gun control. - Charlton Heston 11 Sept 97
WestonDon
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2680
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:30 pm
Location: Wood county

Re: LEO response to MWAG call

Post by WestonDon »

I can see both sides of the discussion about the officers actions. His actions however are not the root cause of the problem. And there is a problem anytime guns are drawn on innocent people. The root cause of the problem is the need to handle a firearm as part of our daily activities. I don't think even a call about a person OCing would have resulted in guns drawn. It was the fact that the gun was being handled that seemed to set off alarm bells. Just another example of how CPZs are detrimental to public safety.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
techguy85
Posts: 1332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:55 am
Location: Columbus

Re: LEO response to MWAG call

Post by techguy85 »

Shutterbug57 wrote:
techguy85 wrote:I lean toward this opinion. Do I believe there was a better way to handle this, yes I do. However, it is all too easy for us to see things from only one point of view. I have enough awareness to know that the way I see it is through the perspective of my own situation, and that I'm far from being impartial.
I've spent far more time thinking about this than it probably deserves, and even though I don't like what happened, and still feel that it was a bit over the top, I can't condemn what the officer did either.
I hear you, but if we accept a felony takedown every time a cop knows someone has a gun, but has no further indication of anything illegal being done, where does that leave us?
Again, some perspective... The call was that I was loading a gun in the parking lot. Not jus that I had one.
I wasn't nervous or surprised to see him there, but the hand movement thing he described could have happened. I do remember taking my hands away from my body when he actually got out of his cruiser, but I can't say for certain that I didn't touch my pockets like he described before he got out.
So, while I think a little more observation might have showed him that hey, these guys are just going about their business, or if he could have told us to stop and asked what we were doing from cover without pointing his gun at us and thus triggered my automatic notification, it isn't difficult for me to understand why this happened.
And now here I am defending what happened... :shock: what a weird world we live in.
Look., don't take this to mean that I'm happy about this. And I do think it was a bit overboard considering that no blood was running in the parking lot, people weren't running out of the store in fear, and all of that. We had been in the store for about 10 minutes or so... But I'm just saying that we can't just jump on the cop and start treating him like he's a repeat of officer out of control from Canton, because there is no indication that he is anything of the sort. People I trust and respect have vouched for his character and until I see some proof otherwise I'm going to treat him accordingly.
techguy85
Posts: 1332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:55 am
Location: Columbus

Re: LEO response to MWAG call

Post by techguy85 »

WestonDon wrote:I can see both sides of the discussion about the officers actions. His actions however are not the root cause of the problem. And there is a problem anytime guns are drawn on innocent people. The root cause of the problem is the need to handle a firearm as part of our daily activities. I don't think even a call about a person OCing would have resulted in guns drawn. It was the fact that the gun was being handled that seemed to set off alarm bells. Just another example of how CPZs are detrimental to public safety.
This is definitely true. Had I not been disarmed by statute, my gun would have never left the holster all day long.
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4753
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: LEO response to MWAG call

Post by Chuck »

I've read and thought and read and thought about this and my considered opinion is this officer needs more, better, training.
I say this not to fault the officer, but to fault his training
His current training had him drawing down on a law abiding citizen without RAS.

For those who may disagree with my assessment, my question is: "What crime did he suspect these two citizens of?"

LEOs should NEVER perform felony takedowns (or whatever they're called) without RAS.
That was a very dangerous situation that could, and should, have been avoided.

IMO you should now make inquiries from the department about policies and training involving interactions with CHL holders and conditions under which a felony stop is appropriate.
Everybody who knows this cop seems to think he's ok, so I'm not judging him negatively. But let's teach him how to do things a little bit safer, and perhaps avoid another such unfortunate set of circumstances.

You've reflected on what things you could have done differently, his department should too
Open the conversation, don't let it peter out now,,,,
Ain't activism fun?

"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. " - George Washington

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
And because I can not do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of GOD, I will do."
- Edward Everett Hale (descendant of Nathan Hale)
User avatar
AmendII71
Posts: 435
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:29 am
Location: Pike County

Re: LEO response to MWAG call

Post by AmendII71 »

glocksmith wrote:
JediSkipdogg wrote:
lairdstew wrote:
Just my warped view of the world, but I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that the majority of new hires in police departments are fresh out of the military. A lot of them just don't grasp the idea that being an LEO, one is a public servant - and dealing with citizens, not insurgents in a war zone.
Glocksmith,.... as a former US Air Force Security Policeman I believe you are dead on with this quote. I think this is very true. As the War on Drugs changed the whole mind set in terms of the "role of the street cop", former military individuals entering the police forces more and more has now lead to a completely different "cop culture". Former Feds are basically now alot of your local law enforcement..........think about that for a minute. AND REMEMBER EVERYONE, I SAY THIS AS A FORMER MILITARY SERVICEMAN FOR 5 YEARS.
"Better to have it and not need it, than need it, and not have it."
Cruiser
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 10911
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:41 pm
Location: Mercer County, Ohio - what is yours?

Re: LEO response to MWAG call

Post by Cruiser »

And notice that only the older LEO have hair! :roll: So what is with all the military haircuts?
Abandon ye all HOPE!
glocksmith
Posts: 3918
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:04 am
Location: Cincinnati/SW Ohio

Re: LEO response to MWAG call

Post by glocksmith »

Thanks Amend. I'm glad to see at least someone agrees with me. With a few minor exceptions here and there, the majority in policing are ex-military, white males aged 18-35. There is a sameness about them in both appearance and behavior. And I know what Cruiser is saying. Last time I had an encounter - there were multiple officers there - the older guys with "the hair" and the old style police uniforms were a lot more friendly to me and even chatted with me - whereas the two young guys in tactical outfits who initially had stopped me, were pretty stand-offish and not all that fun to be around.
Give em' Hell Pike!!!
techguy85
Posts: 1332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:55 am
Location: Columbus

Re: LEO response to MWAG call

Post by techguy85 »

Chuck wrote:IMO you should now make inquiries from the department about policies and training involving interactions with CHL holders and conditions under which a felony stop is appropriate.
Everybody who knows this cop seems to think he's ok, so I'm not judging him negatively. But let's teach him how to do things a little bit safer, and perhaps avoid another such unfortunate set of circumstances.

You've reflected on what things you could have done differently, his department should too
Open the conversation, don't let it peter out now,,,,
The department has no written policy on interactions with armed citizens except for the bevercreek item posted above. And that was issued as an update/informational item to their officers.
Outside of that, the chief doesn't seem very interested in taking any action.
I've made my feedback and concerns known in writing...
Post Reply