CHP officer involved in shooting

[Canucky]

Coded same here. Also Douglas and I 80. Away thanks for the responses, Thread jack over

[tenpercentfirearms]

Sucks to be the cop hope things work out. Sucks to be the dead guy guess he either wanted it or deserved it for being stupid /shrug.

He's not dead.

[Librarian]

Just to confirm, open carrying must be done from a holster correct?

That's the easy and usually most convenient way; 'in a holster on the belt' is called out in PC as an example of 'not concealed'.

But a holster is not required; plainly visible on the seat of one's car is also 'not concealed', and that would be a method of 'open carry'.

[tenpercentfirearms]

That's the easy and usually most convenient way; 'in a holster on the belt' is called out in PC as an example of 'not concealed'.

But a holster is not required; plainly visible on the seat of one's car is also 'not concealed', and that would be a method of 'open carry'.

So does that include carrying it around in your hand down the street?

[socalblue]

That's the easy and usually most convenient way; 'in a holster on the belt' is called out in PC as an example of 'not concealed'.

But a holster is not required; plainly visible on the seat of one's car is also 'not concealed', and that would be a method of 'open carry'.

Exactly. My understanding of case law is that the firearm must not be fully or 'mostly' concealed & it must be recognizable as a firearm.

My recollection of the "mostly concealed" comes from the firearm having to be recognizable (IE: not in a case that conceals everything except a small cutout around say the trigger) or it's almost totally concealed (IE: a little tiny bit of the firearm shows).

In the end if you try to hide it & do not have an LTC it's a problem waiting to happen.

[Librarian]

So does that include carrying it around in your hand down the street?

It could. It's not a manner I would recommend unless it were in immediate use for some lawful purpose. Very likely to produce MWAG calls.

[RP1911]

In the hand, could be comstrued as brandishing? Notice every UOC video I have seen, none of the UOCers will touch a handgun after a 12031 (e) check and ask the officer to reholster the handgun for them.

Am I missing something?

[RP1911]

Sorry for typos. Cell phone and fat fingers don't do well together.




ETA: now fixed in previous post.

[paul0660]

So does that include carrying it around in your hand down the street?

It would. A sensible person would weigh this type of carry and accede to LEO demands. But not everyone can afford a holster, after all, and the sun might have been in his eyes, and maybe his buddies routinely goofed him by saying "CHP, drop the weapon".

The patrolman thought he was going to get shot, and shot first. Now we get to follow the money, and that will have a lot to do with whether the gun was loaded.

[IrishJoe3]

Wes thanks i understand them acting and not waiting. Didn't realize they patrolled in the city aswell as HIGH PATROL.

Well when you understand that HIGHWAY is any publicly maintained road, it makes more sense

[Shadowdrop]

and that will have a lot to do with whether the gun was loaded.

Not really. Police officers don't have x-ray vision. If someone has a weapon in their hand, disobey a lawful order to drop it, and make a sudden movement that leads the officer to believe they are being aggressive...it is a good shoot. It wouldn't really matter if it's unloaded firearm, an airsoft pistol, or a gun-shaped lighter.

[SickofSoCal]

So, let's hold off for a couple of hours until some details get released, 'K?

Video says pedestrian had handgun in his hand; officer commanded he put it down, but pedestrian did not; ped turned toward officer, still holding handgun; CHP officer shot.

Can we trust that tho?

Is this going to be like the deaf native american "knife guy" who got a few nanoseconds before he was gunned down from behind by 4 shots?

Or how about that Long Beach shooting and all the misinfo from police in that case?

They always seem to say incredibly inflammatory statements to the press justifying their actions. Then, later it comes out that they lied.....big time. But, they still win, becuase by that time of the press coverage and hubbub has died down. We have seen this happen again, and again, and again, and again over the past decade in America.


We just don't know anything right now. The police are not a good source to be trusting.

[Ubermcoupe]

I am assuming the guy carrying the gun was not in the correct mental state (whether that be drugs/anger/stupidity).

[Librarian]

Can we trust that tho?

Is this going to be like the deaf native american "knife guy" who got a few nanoseconds before he was gunned down from behind by 4 shots?

Or how about that Long Beach shooting and all the misinfo from police in that case?

They always seem to say incredibly inflammatory statements to the press justifying their actions. Then, later it comes out that they lied.....big time. But, they still win, becuase by that time of the press coverage and hubbub has died down. We have seen this happen again, and again, and again, and again over the past decade in America.


We just don't know anything right now. The police are not a good source to be trusting.

I think the answer is 'yes, usually we can trust that'. And I disagree that anything I have seen reported from news or police could be called 'inflammatory'; perhaps you were looking for a different adjective.

That does not refute the possibility of problems; on the first day of investigation, little can be said to be definite.

But I agree; before we go strongly in either direction, it seems appropriate to wait for some investigation to complete.

[Dave A]

From an early post,

"Sac County Sheriffs. Never seem them patrol where I live. Always Roseville PD. "

If you see Roseville PD then you must live in the city of Roseville and you should never see Sac County Sheriffs, because you are in Placer County not Sac.