Open carry during a ride along.

[abom334]

Would you allow a ride along to open carry. How would it effect your day?

In Ohio we are restricted from carrying in police stations and court houses. There is no restriction I am aware of as a passenger. (up front of course)



Tapatalk requires no training for things like spelling, accuracy, clarity, cohesiveness or manners.

Why are you here Cornfed? You started this thread asking if we would permit it, as I see it no agency would, and we state our reasons as to why. It almost seems to me your trolling.. You have your answers from several LEO from around the Country. Your not going to convince us otherwise. We do what we do based on learning from past mistakes or experiences. I doubt your theory or way of thinking has anything to do with past experiences. We are NOT taking away your right to carry. If you want to carry, you aren't riding in my car. Plain and simple.

[lewisipso]

It's good to be armed with specific events over emotion.

This is not emotion this is experience. This is years of dealing with a variety of the "man with a gun" call, which I would garner you have not, and wanting very much to go home to my family at the end of my shift, not get sued, hurt an innocent person or be killed.

Off duty cops = citizens.

You are incorrect. As it has been said before as a sworn law enforcement off we have a DUTY to act. A civilian has no such obligation.
§134. Malfeasance in office
A. Malfeasance in office is committed when any public officer or public employee shall:
(1) Intentionally refuse or fail to perform any duty lawfully required of him, as such officer or employee

saying the training would force LEO to shoot such people not in uniform with a gun on scene. My argument is that's not true.

My LEO training does not force me to shoot anyone. ANY persons negative or untrained action(s) with a firearm does. I'm sorry do cannot seem to grasp this concept. Your posts and videos relate to an armed citizen helping with no cops around. I believe this has evolved into when cops show with armed people presenting weapons. Either way, good fortune to you.

[lewisipso]

Off duty cops = off duty cops. We are bound by oath, ethics, and training to act for public safety. You aren't.



Yes it is. Every year, off duty or plain clothes cops are killed because they have a gun out in a fight or disorder. A cop in NY was just cleared of shooting an off duty federal agent. There is no magic good guy filter on our gun sites.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[121Traffic]

[QUOTE=Cornfed1100;597838]

We aren't talking about an "extra gun". The initial point of this thread was citizen carry on a ride along, then evolved into whether citizen carry in a police station is a great idea, which it arguable is not.

I'm sorry, but the examples you have provided do not help your argument. The mall shooting massacre guy was assisted to the next world by OFF DUTY cops, not just citizens carrying firearms.


Off duty cops = citizens




Tapatalk requires no training for things like spelling, accuracy, clarity, cohesiveness or manners.

Seriously? Yes. Just like all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All cops are citizens in that they are private entities when they're off duty, but not all citizens are cops, which is the distinction that you seem to be missing...on purpose even? You know what I mean when I refer to "citizens" here...I mean non-sworn, non-LEO citizens. I say "citizens" because I try to stay away from the "civilian" moniker, because I think that's inaccurate as well since we are discussing CIVILian law enforcement.

[121Traffic]

[QUOTE=Cornfed1100;597839]

We aren't talking about an "extra gun". The initial point of this thread was citizen carry on a ride along, then evolved into whether citizen carry in a police station is a great idea, which it arguable is not.

The point is I should not be disarmed during a ride along, police station, movie or post office. My having a weapon exposed should not make me an automatic threat to LEO. It's truly a perception issue. It's been trained into LEO brains if there is a gun minus a uniform that's the bad guy. They teach LEO to yell, "GUN" if you see one. This reinforces the paranoia of a man with a gun.
The point of my links support that even not dressed as an office civilians can help without being shot.

It's been comments here saying the training would force LEO to shoot such people not in uniform with a gun on scene. My argument is that's not true.




Tapatalk requires no training for things like spelling, accuracy, clarity, cohesiveness or manners.

No one is disarming you. If you ride, it would be considered voluntarily disarming yourself. No one is touching your gun if you don't want them to. having a gun doesn't make you an automatic threat...it makes you a potential threat. A semantic difference perhaps, but a vital one that you can't so easily gloss over. Just because your right to possess an object is enumerated in the BOR doesn't mean that it's A.) good common sense to have it all the time, and B.) that the pesky Supreme Court wasn't correct in it's multiple decisions that say my temporary safety while in performance of my duties trumps your permanent right to bear arms generally. We limit rights in the interest of public safety all the time. You can't yell "fire" on a place. You can't shout at the top of your lungs in the town square that you're going to blow up schools. If it can be shown that your individual right will threaten the greater public peace (since we are PEACE officers after all), you can be sure that your rights can be curtailed in specific situations.

No one "forces" me to do anything. Training does NOT make you paranoid. You're a firefighter right? What makes you think that just because I've seen FF's on calls before that means I'm qualified to speak on their training? In fact, if I were to make a snap judgment, I would say that the skill most FF's are the BEST at is making spaghetti and pancakes, so that must be the bulk of what they teach at the FF academy. All joking aside, is that a valid observation and opinion on their training?

Training does the exact opposite of what you suggest...it makes you think for yourself and evaluate the situation, sometimes in an instant. It doesn't turn us into robots. You're treading thin ice here, as you're dealing with several firearms/force science instructors here.

And again, as far as your examples are concerned, the people in those were either A.) off duty cops with TRAINING, or B.) taking 165 yard handgun shots from INSIDE their residence.

[121Traffic]

Don't rights trump a privilege? My right to self defense should trump your ability to disarm me.

What? That might be the most irreverent thing you've said in this entire thread, and makes me think that not even YOU believe what you claim to espouse here. In short, absolutely not, to both statements. Rights don't trump a privelige. And my government-granted "power" (which is different from a "right," which is held by individuals and needs no enumeration) to control weapons in my span of control while performing my duties is not a "privelige" and does in fact supercede your right to bear arms in the course of your daily life.

Otherwise, whats the point of offering the right. If we can revoke the rights at will what good are rights?

This coming from the guy who just a few posts ago said we should rely on facts to justify our arguments, not emotion. Ha. The above is pure emotive, rhetoric. Nothing more. No one is "revoking" anything. I am not banning you from carrying. This isn't a matter of "You can't." This is a matter of "If, Then." IF you want to ride, THEN you must agree not to carry a weapon. To "revoke" implies that the owner of the object being "revoked" does not have a say in the matter. You DO have a say. You can stay out of my car.

Do ride alongs lose other right due to the privilege of being a rider? What other rights does a rider lose? 4th, first?

Goodness, gracious. Do you actually think this stuff through? There are absolutely other rights you don't get to exercise on a ride-along. 4A? Yep. Anyone in my car, including a rider, is subject to search at any time if I think it's warranted, i.e. a citizen rides along and I can smell weed. They can refuse the search, but they won't ride along. 1A? Yep. You don't get to go around talking shit to citizens on calls, even if it isn't profane or obscene or anything else that would constitute harassment or Disorderly. If you go around flapping your gums and it inhibits my ability to do my job, your ride along ends.

We have more rights than are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. It is your right to light a cigarette and inhale carcinogens, but once we realized the public health risks associated with second-hand smoke, we made it against the law to do so in certain public places. That is not infringing on your right to smoke. That just means that you can't do it in certain places. Including my cop car. If you light up in my car, you're done. Is this any different? Smoking is my right as an individual. No one can tell me that I can't. But it isn't enumerated in the BOR. The BOR doesn't GIVE me rights, it just outlines ones that I already have by virtue of being a human being in this country. Just because smoking isn't in there doesn't make it any less of a right, but we place reasonable restrictions on when and where we do it every day. Just because the 2A exists doesn't mean that the right can't be curtailed in very specific situations, just like we curtail the 1A every day in certain situations. The BOR is not the "olli-olli-oxenfree" of rights, as much as you want it to be. You don't get to wave it around and say, "I've got a gun and you can't do SHIT about it!"

I argue my rights exist to keep these kinds of things from happening. Rights should be valid until we prove we are not worthy of Having them.

Do we defend our country to revoke rights at will? Where does this mindset come from? We hear, " I will die for your rights". Then follow it with," I'm going to suspend one because I know what's good for you."

Again, emotive and irreverant. You are trying to make mass infringement upon rights somehow equal to the very specific, articulated circumstance of voluntarily signing up for a police ride along. What's that theory about all internet discussions eventually leading up to a Hitler reference? Congratulations, you're almost there, even without my help.

The bigger issue is truly accountability. If I'm a jack wagon that makes a situation worse hold me accountable let the burden of my ignorance fall on me. Not the officer I ride with. Let me be accountable for my own safety.

You're asking us to do something that isn't possible, by virtue of the fact that we are LEOs and the law doesn't allow us the latitude to think like that. Nevermind the fact that we are human beings that don't want harm to befall another if we can help it. If you want to run around like a superhero, by all means, but it won't be on my watch. Or my conscience. Find another profession you can tag along with that would be okay with you being some sort of martyr.

Don't revoke my right under the guise of knowing what's the correct right to revoke.

Oy, again with the "revocation"?

[ChesCopPodz]

Don't rights trump a privilege?

Of course not. That's a dumb question. I'll alter what I said many days ago. Your rights in the Bill of Rights don't exist on someone else's property. You don't have a right to have a job, it's a privilege. And as such, you don't have your rights to free speech, carry guns, not have your stuff searched, etc at work. If you don't like it, you can't work there. If you visit someone else's house, it's not a right, it's a privilege. And you don't have the right to free speech, to carry guns, to not have your stuff searched, etc in someone else's house. If you don't like it, you can't visit there.

You don't have a right to go on a ride along. It's a privilege. And you don't have the right to free speech, to carry guns, to not have your stuff searched when you get in my car to ride with me. If you don't like it, you can't ride with me. It's all the same situation.

The bigger issue is truly accountability. If I'm a jack wagon that makes a situation worse hold me accountable let the burden of my ignorance fall on me. Not the officer I ride with. Let me be accountable for my own safety

Every one of us wishes that it worked that way. But in an age where departments and officers get sued because the fleeing felon causes a crash, it will never be solely the responsibility of the rider in the eyes of lawyers, judges, and juries.

[Cornfed1100]

You don't have a right to go on a ride along. It's a privilege. And you don't have the right to free speech, to carry guns, to not have your stuff searched when you get in my car to ride with me. If you don't like it, you can't ride with me. It's all the same situation.



Every one of us wishes that it worked that way. But in an age where departments and officers get sued because the fleeing felon causes a crash, it will never be solely the responsibility of the rider in the eyes of lawyers, judges, and juries.[/QUOTE]

Thats the best explanation so far.
Thank you

[Redmaster]

If you want to carry in a police vehicle become a policeman because otherwise you will not be carrying in my unit.