Handcuffed, disarmed for obeying the law

KenpoTex

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Messages
3,001
Reaction score
144
Location
Springfield, Missouri
Charlie Mitchener is a 61-year-old general building contractor with an office near Patrick Lane and Fort Apache Road in Las Vegas. He holds permits allowing him to legally carry concealed weapons in Nevada, Florida and Utah.


"Upon presentation of my (firearms permit), the officer asked if I had the weapon on me to which I replied yes. She then said to spread my legs and put my hands behind my back. I complied and she then handcuffed me. While doing so, she said that she wanted to make certain 'that we were all safe.' "

"She then said that she could tell that I was upset with being handcuffed 'like a common criminal.' I explained that I was extremely upset and told her that it was out of respect to her that I provided my (firearms permit) and that the Second Amendment did have some meaning.

"I asked if she was following procedure to handcuff me and remove my weapon to which she did not have a good answer, other than I was larger than her. ... It certainly reminded me of the stories in New Orleans after Katrina regarding confiscating weapons from the law-abiding citizens."

Charlie Mitchener followed the law. He has trained at Front Site and with Tactical Response and continues to regularly visit the range. Yet, "In an instant, I am in handcuffs (at 61 years old, this was a first), and there were no bad guys in handcuffs with me, just the guy who thought he was doing things correctly,"
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/handcuffed-disarmed-for-obeying-the-law-81088092.html

Yeah...everyone was safer because the good guy was placed in cuffs.
 

celtic_crippler

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
3,968
Reaction score
137
Location
Airstrip One
...sigh...

So, this poor fella' has had his office broken into several time and after having his identity verified is cuffed and has his weapon removed.

I'm all for females being able to do the same jobs as men, but if they can't then they don't need to.

IMHO, she put this poor fella in danger actually. What if the perps had still been inside?

What if they rushed her, disabled her, then ran outside? The poor guy was cuffed and disarmed.. how in teh hell could he have defended himself?

He follow the rules... and suffered for it.

I think this rookie should be reprimanded and given additional training if she's going to stay on the force.
 

shesulsa

Columbia Martial Arts Academy
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
27,182
Reaction score
486
Location
Not BC, Not DC
I'm all for females being able to do the same jobs as men, but if they can't then they don't need to.

This had nothing to do with gender ... it had to do with size (and, quite possibly, training)... and I know a Washington State Trooper who is shorter than I who trains *relentlessly* likely due to *his* stature and fervor to do his job effectively.

Your statement was a weensy bit gender-biased ... sorry, had to point that out.

I'm not sure why she did what she did. I wonder if the man was irate and upset? If he were shaken and angry and it seemed uncontrollable in said circumstance and I felt I couldn't rely on this guy to not shoot ME (if I were the officer) I may do the very same thing. But we have his account alone and his training ... even though many go through the certification process and who can really say how they would react in such a situation?

I'm not happy this man was put in handcuffs on the surface ... but I just kinda have to wonder ....
 

celtic_crippler

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
3,968
Reaction score
137
Location
Airstrip One
This had nothing to do with gender ... it had to do with size (and, quite possibly, training)... and I know a Washington State Trooper who is shorter than I who trains *relentlessly* likely due to *his* stature and fervor to do his job effectively.

Your statement was a weensy bit gender-biased ... sorry, had to point that out.

I'm not sure why she did what she did. I wonder if the man was irate and upset? If he were shaken and angry and it seemed uncontrollable in said circumstance and I felt I couldn't rely on this guy to not shoot ME (if I were the officer) I may do the very same thing. But we have his account alone and his training ... even though many go through the certification process and who can really say how they would react in such a situation?

I'm not happy this man was put in handcuffs on the surface ... but I just kinda have to wonder ....

The reason I pointed that out was because she cited that an an excuse for disarming him and cuffing him.

I don't doubt the ability of women due to gender. I've been to seminars where females half my size tossed me around like a rag doll ( I'm not a small guy)... so I know they can do the job if they have the proper taining! LOL

My concern is that she may have put this man's safety in jeoparody due to her own shor comings or lack of confidence.

That could or could not be her fault, it could be a training issue. Regardless, it needs to be addressed before she gets someone, or herself, killed.
 

Carol

Crazy like a...
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
20,311
Reaction score
541
Location
NH
This had nothing to do with gender ... it had to do with size (and, quite possibly, training)...

The article makes it quite clear that this is gender-related. Not saying they are correct, but that is clearly the picture they are trying to paint:

America in 2025, gals: Keep at it, and it can be your own private Afghanistan.
 
OP
KenpoTex

KenpoTex

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Messages
3,001
Reaction score
144
Location
Springfield, Missouri
I'm not sure why she did what she did. I wonder if the man was irate and upset? If he were shaken and angry and it seemed uncontrollable in said circumstance and I felt I couldn't rely on this guy to not shoot ME (if I were the officer) I may do the very same thing. But we have his account alone and his training ... even though many go through the certification process and who can really say how they would react in such a situation?

It wouldn't surprise me, based on his training, if he is more competent than she is...just saying.

If someone who has several CCW permits, has obtained professional training, and who notified her that he was armed (something I doubt that I would do) is such a problem for her, perhaps she is in the wrong profession. What was her legal justification for cuffing him and removing his weapon? The concept of "officer safety" is not carte blanche to do whatever one wants.

And for the record, I don't care that she's a female. If a male officer had done this I'd be saying the same thing.
 

Carol

Crazy like a...
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
20,311
Reaction score
541
Location
NH
If being female truly wasn't an issue, then there would be no need for such commentary in the article.

Last year I was channel flipping and caught a rerun of Cops on G4 or some such network. A Washington State officer (male) was approaching a drug suspect, also male. The officer asked the suspect's permission to search his person. The suspect said that he had syringes in his backpack, which IMO is not against the law. As a result, the subject was handcuffed "for his protection and for the protection of the officer". I am reading this as the suspect having something that is legal to possess, and is out of apparante courtesy letting the officer know about what is in his bag.

I'm not going to make a definitive statement based on what was seen on TV, but I suspect there are certain policies (at least in the west) that advise police officers to handcuff a subject when they volunteer that they have certain materials in their possession.

If the officer in Las Vegas was following department policy, then is it truly her that has the actions that are objectionable? Or is it the people that made the policies that she is following?

The article seems to be more interested in denigrating female officers than finding the root cause of the issue.
 

Deaf Smith

Master of Arts
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
1,722
Reaction score
85
Here in Texas you are supposed to show your CHL IF AND WHEN the LEO asks for your ID.

If you are not asked for your ID, you don't have to say anything.

But, just drive to Louisiana and you will find if a LEO 'approaches you in an official manner' you must inform him you are armed.

Funny thing about this Las Vegas thing is if he had been carrying illegally he would have not had to say anything. Surely the officer understood if he was of ill intent he would have just kept his mouth shut and waited for the right time, size difference or not.

Well no good deed goes unpunished.....

I've been stopped a few times and the LEOs here were nice. One even asked what kind of handgun I had on me.

Only question is, in Nevada do you have to show your CCW when stopped?

Deaf
 
OP
KenpoTex

KenpoTex

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Messages
3,001
Reaction score
144
Location
Springfield, Missouri
If being female truly wasn't an issue, then there would be no need for such commentary in the article.

...
If the officer in Las Vegas was following department policy, then is it truly her that has the actions that are objectionable? Or is it the people that made the policies that she is following?

The article seems to be more interested in denigrating female officers than finding the root cause of the issue.

If the author of the article is attributing the situation to the fact that the officer was a female, that's his deal. I frankly didn't even notice that comment the first time around because the author's opinion doesn't really have a bearing on the facts of the case.
According to the information we have at the moment we have a business owner who has been the victim of a crime but when he, out of what I'm sure was his attempt at courtesy, informed the officer that he was legally armed, she had an issue with it and treated him like he was a criminal.

Deaf Smith said:
Only question is, in Nevada do you have to show your CCW when stopped?
I'm curious about that as well. However, even if that is the case, this wasn't a "stop." He was the one who reported the crime, I would personally feel no obligation to inform the officer that I was armed in a situation like this (and stories like this leave me with even less motivation to do so).
 

shesulsa

Columbia Martial Arts Academy
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
27,182
Reaction score
486
Location
Not BC, Not DC
I should be clearer - I think the author is gender-biased (agree with Carol) in his assumption here. His own article says the officer says she took this action to make sure they were all safe.

Now ... I agree with Tex that I question the judgement of handcuffing the owner of the business.

That said ... I have to wonder, given the final line of the article, if the business owner who was handcuffed was also gender-biased here since that seems to be half of the issue.

So ... why exactly did she feel unsafe with a man larger than her *certified* with a firearm?

I'd rather have someone with a level head, training and a firearm who seems to be calm in the situation on hand if I were the only officer, and only if immediate action need be taken. Calling for backup and waiting for backup seems to be the policy, no?

Hence, it's very easy for me to allow these questions to bump around in my head:

1. why the need to address gender in the article at all if this were strictly about procedure and rights?

2. was this the first incident like this with this officer riding alone?

3. was business owner trying to force officer to take immediate action when she had no police backup and was flying solo?

4. was business owner trying to play hero for the lil' lady?

I just question the validity of the complaint when it's not just about procedure - and it seems like we've only heard part of the story.
 

Archangel M

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,555
Reaction score
154
I think a lot of people are making a lot of assumptions (yall know the saying about "assume"), her training? her experience? her confidence? Based on this rendition?

The way I read it:

Call of a break in.

Man on scene says he has a gun. Claims to be the owner.

We don't have "good guy radar". Unless she had personal contact with the man before and KNEW he was the owner, she doesn't have any idea who is who. Maybe the owner is really dead inside and this guy is a disgruntled customer.

A lone officer responding to a possible BIP arrives solo to find an armed man....could she have dealt with it better/differently? Probably. If I had a nickle for every time I answered yes to that question.

We are also seeming to be taking the word of what looks like a guy not liking being disarmed "by a girl" as 100% accurate.

I'm not all too fired up over this story.

IMO it reads like another story designed to fire up the "right to carry types" and portray law enforcement as governmental repression agents eager to trample everyones second amendment rights..soon followed by a hearty backslapping about how much better gunfighters they are than the cops.

Im am EXTREMELY pro 2nd. But sometimes I think people are out LOOKING for things so hard that they see things through warped lenses.
 
Last edited:

Archangel M

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,555
Reaction score
154
Something every cop discovers in short order.

They will recieve a complaint from a person that TOTALLY seems like a 180 from the way the contact really went. Many times it's simply due to the persons emotional response to the police contact...sometimes they are outright fabrications.

Of course some of them are also justified, I have been involved in enough IA'a (investigating them) to know the difference after a few questions to all involved.
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
189
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/handcuffed-disarmed-for-obeying-the-law-81088092.html

Yeah...everyone was safer because the good guy was placed in cuffs.

On the one hand, I probably wouldn't have handcuffed the guy if he wasn't a suspect of anything and had a lawful CCW.........at the same time, officers should have latitude in situations where they reasonably feel a threat might exist, and I don't find handcuffing him and securing the weapon entirely unreasonable. The court has long maintained that being handcuffed isn't necessarily an arrest.

It's a difficult situation.......I would have reacted differently, but at the same time i'm not going to condemn this officer for doing what she was trained to do, which is handcuff if she feels that the safety of a situation warrants it.



Bottom line, the guy got detained for a short time and his gun taken from his possession for a short time.........that's not as big a deal as everyone wants to make it sound, and really consists of being offended and inconvenienced......and while I can sympathize, these things can happen, and we need to have thick skin in the real world............I myself expect that it's possible if i'm off duty and armed that an officer might respond in a similar manner, and I am fully prepared to cooperate with him without argument until we get the situation sorted out.
 
OP
KenpoTex

KenpoTex

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Messages
3,001
Reaction score
144
Location
Springfield, Missouri
The way I read it:

Call of a break in.

Man on scene says he has a gun. Claims to be the owner.

We don't have "good guy radar". Unless she had personal contact with the man before and KNEW he was the owner, she doesn't have any idea who is who. Maybe the owner is really dead inside and this guy is a disgruntled customer.

A lone officer responding to a possible BIP arrives solo to find an armed man....could she have dealt with it better/differently? Probably. If I had a nickle for every time I answered yes to that question.

We are also seeming to be taking the word of what looks like a guy not liking being disarmed "by a girl" as 100% accurate.

If she had arrived at the scene and found the guy walking around with a gun in his hand, I could certainly understand her desire to verify his identity and make sure he wasn't a threat before she proceeded to do anything else. If that had been the case, I wouldn't be questioning her actions.

However, according to the guy's statement:
"Each of the occasions began the same: my introduction, my presentation of my Nevada drivers license and my concealed firearms permit. Prior to today, each Metro officer simply replied thank you, proceeded with his work and then when complete there was a conversation about firearms."

Things were real different at 5:30 a.m, Jan. 3, however, when Mr. Mitchener called Metro to report the fifth break-in at his office.

"Upon presentation of my (firearms permit), the officer asked if I had the weapon on me to which I replied yes. She then said to spread my legs and put my hands behind my back. I complied and she then handcuffed me.
The way I read it is that in each occasion, he politely presented them with his ID and CCW. The fact that the officer in this case had to ask him if he had the weapon tells me that it was obviously still concealed. I would think it would have have been fairly easy for her to verify with dispatch the name of the caller (if they hadn't already notified her) and figure out that "yeah, the old dude standing in front of me is not a problem."

I guess I don't get the idea of disarming someone who not only volunteered the fact that he's armed but showed you his ID and CCW. If he had just walked up to her, said "hey I'm John Doe, I'm the one who called you...etc." She would have never known he was armed. His courtesy earned him the fun of sitting around in a pair of handcuffs.

I guess one lesson to take away from this is that unless one is legally required to do so, it's probably not in one's best interest to divulge the fact that he/she is armed (which is something I already believed anyway).
 

Archangel M

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,555
Reaction score
154
I guess that what I am trying to say is that when a story like this comes out people who tend to think the gvt/LE are out to get their guns jump to one conclusion. And a cop like myself can jump to an entirely different one.

The truth can be one..the other...neither..or somewhere in between.
 
OP
KenpoTex

KenpoTex

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Messages
3,001
Reaction score
144
Location
Springfield, Missouri
I guess that what I am trying to say is that when a story like this comes out people who tend to think the gvt/LE are out to get their guns jump to one conclusion. And a cop like myself can jump to an entirely different one.

he truth can be one..the other...neither..or somewhere in between.

I agree that there is more than one side to a story. However, with the multitude of gov/LE types out there who really do buy into the "I'm the only one who should have a gun" crap, I don't think it's a bad thing to take a very critical look at any situation that might have been handled improperly.

If this officer truly can articulate that she was reasonably concerned for her safety (i.e. due to his behavior or whatnot), then that's one thing. However, if her only reason for her actions was simply "because he had a gun," I don't buy it.
 

Archangel M

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,555
Reaction score
154
I agree that there is more than one side to a story. However, with the multitude of gov/LE types out there who really do buy into the "I'm the only one who should have a gun" crap, I don't think it's a bad thing to take a very critical look at any situation that might have been handled improperly.

If this officer truly can articulate that she was reasonably concerned for her safety (i.e. due to his behavior or whatnot), then that's one thing. However, if her only reason for her actions was simply "because he had a gun," I don't buy it.

Agreed. But it's difficult to take a "critical look" when all you have is one side of the story. What happens is everybody jumps to a conclusion that supports their pre-conceptions. And I admit that I have done the exact same thing here. Only framed by MY experience and opinions.

Its my opinion that stories like this can open a "general discussion" about how CCW holders and LE interact, but it's unfair to characterize THIS cop as being "in the wrong" based on a one sided portrayal like this.
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
189
I agree that there is more than one side to a story. However, with the multitude of gov/LE types out there who really do buy into the "I'm the only one who should have a gun" crap, I don't think it's a bad thing to take a very critical look at any situation that might have been handled improperly.

If this officer truly can articulate that she was reasonably concerned for her safety (i.e. due to his behavior or whatnot), then that's one thing. However, if her only reason for her actions was simply "because he had a gun," I don't buy it.

True.....but we also need to remember that it's unreasonable to believe that all police officers will respond to these type of situations at the level some of us would. I've been doing this job for going on 14 years........and I don't respond to things like I did when I got out of the academy.

The reality is that you can't entirely train the good judgment of a veteran officer in to a rookie. What you can train good hard and fast rules, such as handcuffing suspects when you feel there is a danger, good patdown practices, etc, etc, etc...........so when they get on the street, they respond instinctively to those situations.

The judgment where one develops the ability to read a situation and determine certain nuances takes years to develop. This is the type of situation that refers to...........a younger officer immediately responds based on their training to the presence of a gun, and goes in to that trained default mode.

A veteran officer, however, will have the experiences to read the whole situation and determine whether that default mode is required.

The flip side of that, however, is the very true fact that often times that default mode will save a younger officer, and can get a veteran officer killed if he's not careful and gets too lax, as the average time of officers killed in the line of duty is 10 years experience...........so it's a trade off. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2008/data/table_07.html
 

Cryozombie

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 11, 2003
Messages
9,998
Reaction score
206
The court has long maintained that being handcuffed isn't necessarily an arrest.

Until, of course, you resist being put into said cuffs, then its a case of resisting arrest, even if you were "not under arrest" at the time, yes?
 

lklawson

Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
5,036
Reaction score
1,680
Location
Huber Heights, OH
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/handcuffed-disarmed-for-obeying-the-law-81088092.html

Yeah...everyone was safer because the good guy was placed in cuffs.
Yup. Cops can cuff you pretty much at will as long as they have a minimally convincing justification. And, let's be honest, "He had a gun, I didn't know, him, and I'm responding to a B&E" is, minimal justification.

Note that I didn't say, "good" I said, "minimal."

Cops are given considerable latitude by our society based on the (generally true) theory that they're "good guys" and aren't going to abuse the power we give them.

In this case what the officer chose to do, imo, was not the right choice but neither was it sufficient to level accusations of abuse under color of authority.

I bet there will be some "additional training," a semi-official (and unsatisfactory) apology, and an official "These aren't the droids you're looking for... move along."

I'd be pretty grumpy too if it happened to me, but there's just not that much to comment on. At best, you could claim that the issue is with society's presentation of firearms, in general. Guns are "scary and dangerous" and are only to be trusted in the hands of "an official, vetted, government actor" and NOT John Q.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 

Latest Discussions

Top