Question about aggressive UOCers

[MichaelKent]

This came up in a discussion on another message board and I wanted to ask CA LEOs what you thought:

If someone is practicing their right to carry openly, and they are suspected of a crime and you, as a police officer, approach them, are they in more danger of being shot if there's an altercation?

For example, you're responding to a call about vandalism or disorderly conduct on two different nights. On one night, it's a guy without an obvious gun (say just in shorts and a wife-beater t-shirt), and you try to talk to him and he gets aggressive.

Next night, you get a call about vandalism or disorderly conduct, but this time, it is a man who openly carrying a firearm, holstered, on his hip, legally. You try to talk to him, and he gets aggressive.

How are these two situations handled? The same or different? How much does the presence of the firearm alter how you discharge your duty or respond to the aggressive individual?

Thanks for your input.

[SVT-40]

This came up in a discussion on another message board and I wanted to ask CA LEOs what you thought:

If someone is practicing their right to carry openly, and they are suspected of a crime and you, as a police officer, approach them, are they in more danger of being shot if there's an altercation?

For example, you're responding to a call about vandalism or disorderly conduct on two different nights. On one night, it's a guy without an obvious gun (say just in shorts and a wife-beater t-shirt), and you try to talk to him and he gets aggressive.

Next night, you get a call about vandalism or disorderly conduct, but this time, it is a man who openly carrying a firearm, holstered, on his hip, legally. You try to talk to him, and he gets aggressive.

How are these two situations handled? The same or different? How much does the presence of the firearm alter how you discharge your duty or respond to the aggressive individual?

Thanks for your input.

How would you know before the incident that the person armed with a firearm was just "open carrying"? Your question presupposes to much.

If someone is suspected of committing a crime and they are ALSO armed and acting "aggressively", they will be treated as any other suspected criminal who is armed and acting aggressively.

Leo's will use the minimum amount of force necessary to detain or arrest the person suspected of a crime. Armed or not. It's as simple as that.

[alex00]

If someone is open carrying and I plan to arrest them for a crime, it would be poor officer safety to place myself into a position where a scuffle or wrestling match might ensue until they are disarmed. If I am attempting to arrest someone who is carrying concealed and the gun becomes visible I will do what is necessary to secure that weapon.

Your scenario assumes that an officer has some prior knowledge that the person committed a crime, and didn't develop this knowledge during the struggle. Most officers won't give up an advantage of distance until the person is disarmed and/or complying with orders.

[Samuelx]

IMO, openly carrying and acting stupid (hostile, belligerent, aggressive, etc) towards LE is a good way to possibly get yourself shot. If you're on the up and up, the more you cooperate, the better it will be for all parties involved and the sooner you will be on your way.

Wrto using a minimal amount of force - we can get seriously hurt or killed if, when it's time to use force, we Hesitate or use Too Little (especially in deadly force situations). Deliberately trying to use a minimal amount or being overly nice, IMsmeO, can compromise officer safety. Speaking for me, IF I use force it's entirely because of a subject's actions and he/she is going to get a healthy dose of it.

[RDT72]

Aggressive behavior towards law enforcement is never acceptable, Ca. Case Law deems aggressive and/or belligerent behavior ALONE towards on duty LEO's as enough reason to constitute a pat search without consent. If you add a visible weapon, especially a firearm, to that equation expect to be held and gun point, proned out, handcuffed, disarmed and patted-down. Any furtive movements or continued resistance to the officer's orders may get you seriously hurt or killed once you've decided to be armed with a handgun.

It's not worth it, the top priority of all Officers and Deputies is to go home alive at the end of their shifts, and their actions should and will reflect their top priority. Officers will consider any firearm to be loaded until we have personally inspected the weapon ourselves.

[BigDogatPlay]

If someone is suspected of committing a crime and they are ALSO armed and acting "aggressively", they will be treated as any other suspected criminal who is armed and acting aggressively.

^^^ This ^^^

Lawfully carrying a firearm, whether it be UOC, LOC or CC, and acting agressively are completely and utterly antithetical to each other. Anyone who is going to act out aggressively towards others has no business going armed, IMO.

Leo's will use the minimum amount of force necessary to detain or arrest the person suspected of a crime. Armed or not. It's as simple as that.

^^^ And this^^^

And while the amount of force I use would be minimal, it will also (typically) be sufficient to overcome whatever potential for resistance I might encounter while making that arrest if I am forced to employ it.

By that rationale, if I come on scene and there is someone acting "aggressively" toward others and he is clearly and visibly armed with a firearm, that person is almost certainly going to get a good look at the bad end of my firearm.