Armchair critics

[USAF_2T2]

With most jobs in America we are forced to make on the spot decisions that will great affect the way things go. Like a Trucker, if you don't slow for a traffic jam ahead then you could make someone have a bad day.

It is like that in our profession as well. The reason I thought of this is from a video we saw in school. It shows a man walking down the sidewalk with his back to the Police with his hands in his coat pockets. In the video it is 2 in the morning. The Police stop him and ask him what he was doing. (what we call a field contact) They tell him to take his hands out of his pockets and to turn around and he complies. When he does he has a revolver in his hand. Now mind you that if he wanted to he could have put a hole or 2 in the Police Officers. He is ordered to drop his weapon, but he says "No." He is not pointing the gun at the Officers, and it is not concealed.

In your mind what if anything is he doing wrong, are the Officers justified in drawing their weapons on him? Can the Officers do anything at all?

Just curious as to what both LEO and non-LEO think about this one.

[lonewolf]

i think the officers are more than justified in drawing their weapons and ordering him to drop the weapon,even though he is not pointing the gun at the officer and it's not concealed,the officers have no way of knowing what his actual intent is and they have every right to disarm him for their own safety.

with him refusing to drop the,he is putting his own life at risk as well,depending on the experience of the officers,any slight movement could get him shot.

what he should have done is either bring the gun out by holding it by the trigger guard,or brought it out butt first.

in my mind,he should be charged with brandishing and failure to comply with a ploice officer.

[Deputy Dogg]

In your mind what if anything is he doing wrong, are the Officers justified in drawing their weapons on him? Can the Officers do anything at all?

Are they justified in drawing there weapons? Hell YES! As long as you have clearly indentified yourself as a LEO You are facing a armed individual who , although is not aiming at you ,still poses a threat to you. I have been there and done that with a pucker factor of at least 9+. I once stopped a group of 12-13 y/o males out in a suburban neighborhood at 02:30. One turned on me with what appeared to be a semi-auto pistol at this side, I drew down on the whole group order them all to the ground called for back-up had my K-9 partner watch over the rest while I took custody of a water pistol. Kid told me he was just "showing off" and tring to "scare me" Well it worked kid. Could have turned out real bad for everyone involved

[Wrongway]

Should the officers stop him in the first place?
In my layman's opinion, No.
Not without "real" probable cause or recognizable enough on a warrant.
Otherwise, It's none of the officer's business what this person is doing out at that time.

The rest is acedemic. Y'all should know the right way to approach someone. That obviously wasn't the right way.

Without probable cause could you even make a concealed weapon charge stick?

[Foxfire]

Walking down the sidewalk at 2 in the morning is probabale cause in my book. But I'm not a LEO. And if I were in the officer's shoes I would draw down on him also.

[Wrongway]

Why is it probable cause Fox?
IS it illegal for someone to be up and out at that time?
IS Martial Law or a curfew in place?

What about people who work the late shift & walk home?
What about a person just obtaining toothache meds for themselves or a family member?
What about someone who decides that 2am is just the right time to walk/jog?
How about some truck driver making a delivery down the street and wants dinner or a cold drink?

I can think of dozens of non-nefarious reasons to be out then.
I've been that person on the street at 2am.
And none of those reasons are anyone's business without probable cause.

[Crystal Pistol]

A LEO doesn't need probable cause to affect a "Terry stop" (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Terry+v.+Ohio).

There are other lessor threasholds than "probable cause", there is "reasonable suspicion" and there is "articulable suspicion".

The term "probable cause" is a standard more correctly applied to searches, arrests, and warrants.

... a man walking down the sidewalk with his back to the Police with his hands in his coat pockets. In the video it is 2 in the morning. The Police stop him and ask him what he was doing. (what we call a field contact) They tell him to take his hands out of his pockets and to turn around and he complies. When he does he has a revolver in his hand. Now mind you that if he wanted to he could have put a hole or 2 in the Police Officers. He is ordered to drop his weapon, but he says "No." He is not pointing the gun at the Officers, and it is not concealed.

In your mind what if anything is he doing wrong, are the Officers justified in drawing their weapons on him? Can the Officers do anything at all?
The stop is legal. It's not an arrest. Officers are certainly allowed to look after their own safety.

There is absolutely no reason for the officers to not have weapons in hand before the individual is asked to slowly pull his empty hands from his pockets or turn around. They (officer's weapons) can easily be in hand at the ready, but not pointed at the individual, perhaps hanging down beside the leg if the officer so desires. If he pulls the hands out and they are empty, the officer can then holster his weapon "as or after" the individual has turned around facing the officer.
If he comes out with a weapon as this one did, the officer is on much safer ground having a weapon already in hand. He (the individual) may stand there for a few moments with the weapon in hand as long as it doesn't "come up" as he very carefully considers his next move ...
... but I can assure you that mine isn't going to be pointed at the ground once I see one in his hand.

Experience tells me that any individual asked to remove his hands from concealment by an armed police officer is normally going to do so with out dragging their weapon out. If he brings a weapon out, it's for a reason ... likely with the intent of doing great bodily harm to the officers making the request ... and "shame on him".

While he's not violating any laws by walking the street at 2am, the officers are also not violating any law by their stop. His dress, location, timing, other facts that the officers know ... all may lead them to believe that a crime may be taking place. There may be many reasons for thier interest, but when he brings a weapon out of a pocket in a hand that was supposed to come out empty, then he started "living on the edge". He conducted himself in a manner which may be reasonably calculated to bring about a certain response from any LEO wishing to go home at the end of a shift.

A simple search under "Terry stop" yielded the following, there are many more hits you might be interested in reading on the subject at your will. "Terry vs Ohio" (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Terry+v.+Ohio)

[Wrongway]

A LEO doesn't need probable cause to affect a "Terry stop".
There are other lessor threasholds than "probable cause", there is "reasonable suspicion" and there is "articulable suspicion".

The term "probable cause" is a standard more correctly applied to searches, arrests, and warrants.I was not aware of the various other terms / excuses used in lieu of probable cause.
I would be interested in knowing the defintions of "reasonable suspicion" & "articulable suspicion".

Despite my lack of knowledge regarding these other terms, I would still lump them under a blanket term of "probable cause" even though that term may not be exact.
To me, these all require "a valid reason" to stop a stranger on the street.
I won't quibble over symantics on this.
Your terms are good enough for the topic at hand.

The stop is legal. It's not an arrest. Officers are certainly allowed to look after their own safety.In the given example, the officer's safety seemed better served if they hadn't bothered the pedestrian for no real reason.
Their safety would not have become compromised had they simply left the person alone.
I am in complete agreement that the officers are certainly allowed to look after their own safety.
My earlier statement reflects this:The rest is acedemic. Y'all should know the right way to approach someone. That obviously wasn't the right way.Your statement of having ready weapons would have been the correct way to approach in the given example.
In this case, the officers failed to control the situation and let someone get the drop on them.
I am in agreement with the remainder till we get to here:While he's not violating any laws by walking the street at 2am, the officers are also not violating any law by their stop. His dress, location, timing, other facts that the officers know ... all may lead them to believe that a crime may be taking place.Here's where it gets sticky for me.
While the officers might not be violating a local law, there remains Constitutional Laws of right to privacy, unlawfull searches etc etc.
The "dress, location, timing"... smacks of profiling.

In the example, no prior "other information" is given to make anyone think a crime may be in progress.
As written, the example leads me to believe the person was simply minding his own business & walking.

Here's my bottom line.
In this example, the officers had no definitive reason to stop the pedestrian.
They had no indication there was an illegal concealed weapon.
No "reasonable suspicion".
No prior "other info".
Nothing to elude to a crime in progress.
The officers unnecessarily placed themselves in jeapordy by:
1) stepping on the walkers even limited right to privacy/lack of suspicion etc.
2) improperly handling the stop.

I will read your link to "Terry stops" after I post this.
I'll keep an open mind & maybe the link will cause me a change of heart.

[Wrongway]

CP,
Sorry. After reading "Terry" I am more convinced the officer's in the example were incorrect in stopping the pedestrian.

The ground I read for "resonable suspicion" indicated that Terry & friend(s) were in fact "doing something" completely out of the ordinary. Pacing & viewing regularly, at length, across the window of that storefront.

Such was not the case in the example.

Once the officers stopped the pedestrian, that becomes a "siezure of person".
That siezure was not warranted by anything I read in Terry or the example and seems illegal in the Constitution.

The pedestrian should not have been stopped at all.

**USAF..I hope there's a definitive right or wrong answer to all this.
I am interested in knowing if & how wrong I am.**

[lonewolf]

wrongway.while i agree with what you said,i don't believe that is what usaf is looking for,the stop was done,there had to be reasonable cause for the stop,if not,they violated his 4th and 5th ammendments rights,there may have been other factors that the officers noticed while he was walking and where he was walking that caused them to stop him,he may have been acting suspicious or he may have been in a high crime area,what ever the cause,the stop was made.

i think what usaf was looing for is,what would you do in this case,factoring in that it was a legal stop,how would you handle the situation ?

The reason I thought of this is from a video we saw in school.

i take it from this statement, that this some sort of training video,but i may be wrong.

[USAF_2T2]

Like Lonewolf said it was just a video I saw and we were to make a split decision off what we saw.

Like CP said there are many factors that you can use to ask a person a question, but like Wrongway said, there are rights that you have as well.

I like the answers. This is not a right or wrong question, but one to make you think. These are scenarios we as LEO's deal with everyday.

Now if I was to add different areas he was in it raises or lowers the probable cause.





What I said in school.

The person being questions has the Consitutional Right to tell the Police "no." He can do so bearing that he isn't suspicious(carrying a TV or merchandise that would lead a normal person to believe he has committed a crime). I wouldn't suggest it, but what you believe is suspicious and what I believe is suspicious could be 2 different worlds.


"Terry Stop" and "Terry Frisk" are two laws given to LEO's to approach a person.

Terry Frisk, is a pat down for weapons type frisk. By Law you are not to enter the persons pockets without approval, but you can pat them down for weapons(Officer safety)



Great participation so far. If there are scenarios that you have please pass them on here and get an opinion. You never know when you may feel violated by the Police, or not educated enough on what we can and can not do. **Remeber that Laws vary from state to state though**

[Crystal Pistol]

The question was more related to the hands and the weapon. That is how I read it anyway.

Wrongway:
In the given example, the officer's safety seemed better served if they hadn't bothered the pedestrian for no real reason.
Their safety would not have become compromised had they simply left the person alone.

I don't know what the reason for the stop in the example was, but I submit that it is not a police officer's duty to simply ignor situations that might lead one to believe a crime has been or is about to be committed. It's not profiling to simply stop and talk to someone who seems out of place at 2 am or who may fit the description of a perpetrator. In the example, I am forced to assume that there was a reason for the initial stopping of the man in the video, I wasn't asked to offer my opinion of whether the reason was lawful or not so I assume it was.

It is not profiling (and besides, "profiling" is not per se, a bad thing) when one is acting upon certain known information. In the same light, not all forms of discrimination are prohibited, nor are they all bad things. You discriminate when you go to a favorite resturant, you hope your daughter discriminates somewhat when she chooses a life mate, etc ....

[Wrongway]

I took the description of the video literally.
I chose not to assume anything.
Similarly, I took the courts (link for "Terry Stop") opinion/definition literally.

When you put the video's description & the court's definition together, there was no legal basis for stopping the pedestrian.

Perhaps it was the video makers intention to distract the viewer from recognizing the violation of Constitutional Rights by throwing chaffe such as the weapon & time of day in your way?

Perhaps it was the film maker's intention to make the viewer question whether he is acting on assumption or fact?

I make the assumption that the above concepts are important.

Crystal Pistol:
I don't know what the reason for the stop in the example was, but I submit that it is not a police officer's duty to simply ignor situations that might lead one to believe a crime has been or is about to be committed.It is precisely because there were no qualifying reasons given for the stop that makes me believe the focus of the video is the Constitutionality of the stop.

If it's not....maybe it ought to be.

[scubadiver]

The guy was very lucky to not been shot after pulling out a weapon. There are at least five reasons I can think of why the police stopped him. The first is the time of the stop. Second was the guy was acting suspicionally. Third is the area has a high crime rate. Fourth is the area was experincing a rash of bugarlies. The fifth is a combination of the above reasons.

[Crystal Pistol]

Wrongway, :type: the purpose of the video was not to call into question the reason for the stop (if it were, then events leading up to the stop would have been described in sufficient detail as to enable one to make a valid judgement of reasonableness) ...
... it was to train officers for the unexpected. When one is shown these videos, one is just suddenly "along for the ride".

The reason for the stopping was of little consequence, the point of it is what do the students do when a totally unexpected response is made, like a man pulling a gun out of his pockets when empty hands are expected.

I stand by my response. :chug:

[Wrongway]

Since you guys "on the job" have seen more of these types of training videos than I ever will, I'll just agree on your point of the video.

I just saw an additional message or two in the description is all.

[Crystal Pistol]

WW, it's no big deal.

These training videos are meant to place officers / recruits in difficult (usually impossible) situations where there is often no "right way" if the instructor has all bases covered. If a student does find a "right answer", it's often because one of the instructors slipped up. Many times the situations are played out as an officer (or maybe two) are standing there yelling in the ears to distract the student, the pressure can be tremendous ...
... but so can life.

The chances of a person approached by two police officers from the rear and being asked to show his hands at 2am, and of that person actually pulling a weapon out while he knows two officers are standing behind him, and of that person actually refusing to put the weapon down when ordered are very slim at best ...
... but it could happen I suppose, and it makes a great training scenario to stir the mental processs. :type:


There is also the one where an officer is told that an armed young male has escaped in an area, and then suddenly here comes this young male up a hill from the railroad tracks, all the while walking with one hand in his hip pocket. He fails to respond to any verbal commands and when he is almost within arms reach, he whips out a card in a black folder that tells the officer he is deaf. He usually get's killed about the time he whips it out. :cool: