TexasCHLforum.com

I won't say what city this is because I don't want to place a bad name on the city's police force, as most of them are good guys as far as my limited experiences with them have been. Along the same lines, I will not say if I work for the same city's FD. I only have the ability to contact dispatch due to the fact that we have a county wide dispatch agency that dispatched all emergency responders in the entire county (about 60 seperate agencies all dispatched from one comm room) and I also used to work in that comm room, so I know several of the supervisors there personally. I will say that I did not know, nor had I ever even heard of the Sargent that I spoke with. Someone mentioned that I have a somewhat "easier ear" with the department/chief, and while that may or may not be true, that is ONLY because I am also an emergency worker, not because I know any of them personally. I'm waiting, they have my phone number, and can get her phone number from the 911 call record, we'll see if we get an appology. But I'm sort of torn as to whether to actually follow up, or just trust that his Sarge took care of it and go on with my life. What do you guys think? I know some have expressed the thought that I should go downtown and file a formal complaint, and while I haven't ruled that out completely, I do want to give his immediate supervisor the benefit of the doubt and adequate opportunity to handle the situation, as that's what I would want if I were the officer in question, OR his supervisor. Thoughts guys?

mymojo wrote:

I asked about what and she said that he "found" our handguns, one in each nightstand, loaded, holstered with flashlights right next to them.

I'd be less upset about him yelling at my wife than I would be about him obviously rifling through our drawers.

That was exactly my thought. What the heck business of his what's in your nightstand? As long as the drawer is too small to hold a burglar, the contents of that drawer are none of his business. What other drawers did he rifle through? Your wife's lingerie? I mean, that is one creepy cop; and he ought to be disciplined for his obviously warrantless search of your personal possessions - particularly when those possessions have nothing to do with whether or not a burglar is in the house.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

mymojo wrote:

I asked about what and she said that he "found" our handguns, one in each nightstand, loaded, holstered with flashlights right next to them.

I'd be less upset about him yelling at my wife than I would be about him obviously rifling through our drawers.

That was exactly my thought. What the heck business of his what's in your nightstand? As long as the drawer is too small to hold a burglar, the contents of that drawer are none of his business. What other drawers did he rifle through? Your wife's lingerie? I mean, that is one creepy cop; and he ought to be disciplined for his obviously warrantless search of your personal possessions - particularly when those possessions have nothing to do with whether or not a burglar is in the house.

Thats a serious point.

Attempting to understand this LEO's motivation for his extraordinarily out of line behavior i.e., maybe a child/gun tragedy - is not acceptable.

His ill treatment of your wife, his threats and finally his police state tactics while in your house is so far out of line I would suggest you seek his discharge from the force.

This guy is a menace to society.

Abraham wrote:Attempting to understand this LEO's motivation for his extraordinarily out of line behavior i.e., maybe a child/gun tragedy - is not acceptable...

Why is attempting to understand his motivation not acceptable? And what exactly does "not acceptable" mean? Is there some way you can force me not to attempt to understand his motivation???

Nobody said it was a valid excuse for him to take the actions he did.

frazzled wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

mymojo wrote:

I asked about what and she said that he "found" our handguns, one in each nightstand, loaded, holstered with flashlights right next to them.

I'd be less upset about him yelling at my wife than I would be about him obviously rifling through our drawers.

That was exactly my thought. What the heck business of his what's in your nightstand? As long as the drawer is too small to hold a burglar, the contents of that drawer are none of his business. What other drawers did he rifle through? Your wife's lingerie? I mean, that is one creepy cop; and he ought to be disciplined for his obviously warrantless search of your personal possessions - particularly when those possessions have nothing to do with whether or not a burglar is in the house.

Thats a serious point.

Makes perfect sense to me. The wife did describe what weapons were in the house and where they should be. The Officer was checking to see if they had been stolen. Maybe not proper, but seems like the immediate thing to do.

Purplehood wrote:

frazzled wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

mymojo wrote:

I asked about what and she said that he "found" our handguns, one in each nightstand, loaded, holstered with flashlights right next to them.

I'd be less upset about him yelling at my wife than I would be about him obviously rifling through our drawers.

That was exactly my thought. What the heck business of his what's in your nightstand? As long as the drawer is too small to hold a burglar, the contents of that drawer are none of his business. What other drawers did he rifle through? Your wife's lingerie? I mean, that is one creepy cop; and he ought to be disciplined for his obviously warrantless search of your personal possessions - particularly when those possessions have nothing to do with whether or not a burglar is in the house.

Thats a serious point.

Makes perfect sense to me. The wife did describe what weapons were in the house and where they should be. The Officer was checking to see if they had been stolen. Maybe not proper, but seems like the immediate thing to do.

I would have to disagree, once he cleared the house he can have the home owner look for any missing items, he has no need to go through drawers unless like pointed out before a burgler can hide in one.

Makes perfect sense to me. The wife did describe what weapons were in the house and where they should be. The Officer was checking to see if they had been stolen. Maybe not proper, but seems like the immediate thing to do.

I would have to disagree, once he cleared the house he can have the home owner look for any missing items, he has no need to go through drawers unless like pointed out before a burgler can hide in one.

He was looking for missing weapons that may have now been in the hands of a criminal still on the scene. I might have done the same thing, but I wouldn't have lectured the wife.

Purplehood wrote:

Makes perfect sense to me. The wife did describe what weapons were in the house and where they should be. The Officer was checking to see if they had been stolen. Maybe not proper, but seems like the immediate thing to do.

I would have to disagree, once he cleared the house he can have the home owner look for any missing items, he has no need to go through drawers unless like pointed out before a burgler can hide in one.

He was looking for missing weapons that may have now been in the hands of a criminal still on the scene. I might have done the same thing, but I wouldn't have lectured the wife.

If he cleared the scene the criminal would be gone or in custody, unless he was hiding outside in which case the safest place for the homeowner is inside looking for any missing items.

I think it's always a good idea to try and understand someone's reasoning for doing something stupid.

Yelling at someone for doing stupid doesn't always do the trick, as many of you that are parents know. you usually have to address the motivation behind the stupid deed.

I don't go along with him "lecturing" your wife, but I do believe that the weapons he found and loaded could be a serious problem. They were in fact "unsecured". Now you may say that they were secured as long as the house was locked (similar to being locked in a car). But, I suggest that with numerous people living in the house, it is very easy to leave a door unlocked or a window open.

I suggest that whoever was in the house got scared quickly and did not have time to find the guns. Most likely it was teenagers which makes it more important to lock up all guns when you leave the house.

I too have nightstand guns and other guns placed around the house. But before I leave the house, all of those are always put back into the safe. Then when I get back home I reposition them accordingly.

This does two things. It helps to eliminate the guns easily being taken by the would be intruder (teenagers looking for booze or cigarettes normally). It also makes it harder for even the most experienced robber to get them if they are in a good safe.

Oh, and the 3rd thing.......
Very embarrassing to be shot with your own gun upon your return to your residence...........(assuming you live).

Respectfully so what? I missed the law where firearms had to be "secure." This ain't Chicago, yet.

I can leave out guns, (bug)bombs, and idling Ducati motorcycles in every room in the house (except the Ducati's we're talking finite engine time) if I am of a mind.

(EDIT: again this is not meant to be hostile to the poster)

+1

+2 except for the bombs...I think there are federal laws against that.

But AEA wasn't saying there are laws against leaving your gun out at your house, just that it's not a very good idea because of the reasons he stated.

Also (and I know someone is going to decide I'm trying to give this officer a pass just because I'm pointing out a few possible reasons for his inappropriate actions) the officer who got so bent out of shape over it may have been just a little peeved that guns were left unsecured in the house while residents were away which made them available to burglars who in turn could have used them against said officer.

This whole story has made me rethink my gun storage habits. I always figured that since I have a pit bull and two other dogs I could leave my guns loaded and stashed in the normal reachable locations when I leave the house. Someone could easily break the front bay windows and lure my dogs out via baiting, then enter the house and have a field day...even be waiting with one of my guns in hand for me when I got home.

From now on they go in the safe when we're away from home (except for the one(s) I'm carrying, of course). No sense in taking even the minutest risk when it's so simple to mitigate with a nominal change in habits.

And by the way, you got more than one Ducati? Here I sit with no bike at all. Com'on, Bro, spread the wealth like Obama says.

I don't understand what he was doing going through the night stands either. I will admit that the Air Force Security Forces may do things a little different from civilian police departments, and this is where my opinion is coming from, but the police officers duties were to clear the house of "bad guys". The home owner comes in after the house is deemed cleared to let the officers know if anything is missing, vandalized, etc., so a police report can be filled out for the home invasion/theft/destruction of property. The officer has no idea of what's in the house or where and could have possibly, just possibly, contaminated part of the crime scene by touching/moving/etc., the nightstands.

I could understand if he found a gun in a closet, bad guys can hide there, but I have seen many nightstands and haven't seen one a BG could hide in yet. Doesn't make sense to me, weapons or not. The officer has a weapon to use if one is directed at him/her no matter who's gun it is. That will be for the lawyers to sort out later on.

I will go out of my way to defend LEO's in most arenas as they're the object of most people's frustration, anger, etc and, in my opinion, are way underpaid, in most places anyway, for the work they do. I don't understand the actions of this officer at all. Your opinions may vary but this is mine.