Got arrested this morning

[cra1gscott]

This morning my friend and I had loaded weapons pointed at us, were told to walk with our hands in the air, were handcuffed, were told "you are both under arrest under suspicion of possession of a firearm", our clothes were searched searched and my car was briefly examined visually inside before "Thank you for your cooperation, sorry for the trouble but you will understand we have to investigate reports" This is not on and I would like advice as to how to stop this happening to others.

I would like to say from the start that the officers involved were very polite and I thought them all nice guys but the protocol that allowed this to happen is not fair or proportionate and I think if it is allowed to be considered as OK, then we are on a slippery slope to being guilty until proven innocent, which is a bad position to be in with a gun in your hand.

Of course we had permission, of course we didn't point guns at or near anyone. If fact we didn't point a gun at all -no deer was even seen on the permission where I have shot for years. The policeman in charge told me that he didn't know till they arrived at the scene and he took my registration that I had a FAC. To that point if you want to bring 6 or 7 cars full of armed officers and a dog team to a report of "2 males with a long barrelled weapon seen going into (private) wood (in the countryside with no footpath, exiting car parked within woodland edge from woodland facing side and walking in)" then OK if you can justify the resource allocation but from that point on, when nothing suspicious had been done and I was clearly licensed this was surely heavy handed? Surely a quiet word with an unarmed officer when we emerged from the wood to check we had permission would have been enough? Even then whose business is it to check up on law abiding citizens hunting with a weapon held for only hunting unless there has been poaching in the area or suspicion of poaching? Why should hunting be itself a suspicious activity? Is taking cash out of a bank suspicious in itself? Is driving a car away suspicious in itself?

Did I need to be arrested by armed men? did I need to be handcuffed or searched? The officer in charge said "Sorry we can't be taking chances" but if that sort of thinking is allowed to take root we will all be pushed further and further into corners afraid to assert our rights do do what we have worked hard to be given lawful permission to do. What is suspicious about someone who holds a rifle only for deer stalking to be seen deer stalking? I said to the officer "There are thousands of people out on this Christmas holiday Saturday legally shooting. Would it be right to arrest anyone seen in a field carrying a gun on a sling on their shoulder?" He just said they couldn't take chances and I should phone the police to tell them I am going hunting in advance. This is the state going too far in my opinion.

I expect a number of replies to say "You must have done something suspicious" and "We must all just accept this sort of control and interference in the interests of public safety" but I feel this is going too far. Had it been a report of drug use or burglary the police would likely never have even turned up but more people die from drugs and criminal lifestyles than from guns in this country every year, a lot more. There is a witch hunt out for guns and country sports. If we accept this as OK because we are all too scared to risk going on the naughty list next time we want to renew, where does this end?

In the interests of my fellow sportsmen, I would ideally like someone in charge to simply accept that this was a heavy handed approach and to revise the protocol. I don't know if I really want to go through the misery of pushing for this but right now I feel I should. Can anyone advise me how I would best go about this please?

Thanks

Assuming you are in England then write to
Your PCC (police and crime commissioner) with pretty much what you have said on here. They are elected by the public to represent the public

 

[Rutland lad]

May I ask where in the OP was it stated that the officers pointed firearms at the OP. I’ve just reread it and perhaps I’ve missed that but, but I couldn’t find that.
Many replies on here are stating it’s OTT and bad practice to point a weapon at someone - and it is.
But I cannot see that happened. Let’s not make this incident into something it wasn’t.

 

[bigtone]

May I ask where in the OP was it stated that the officers pointed firearms at the OP. I’ve just reread it and perhaps I’ve missed that but, but I couldn’t find that.
Many replies on here are stating it’s OTT and bad practice to point a weapon at someone - and it is.
But I cannot see that happened. Let’s not make this incident into something it wasn’t.

First line of the original post says" this morning my friend and l had loaded weapons pointed at us".Just to add the only time I've encountered armed response whilst "lamping", a long time ago,both officers had their guns hanging around their shoulders with a sling, and were in no way confrontational or hyped up.Pretty laid back and were more interested in a silenced 12g as neither had come across one before.A " let me have a go with yours" fell on death ears though.Lamping rabbits with a h&k would've been fun.

 

[Rutland lad]

First line of the original post says" this morning my friend and l had loaded weapons pointed at us".

Indeed it did - my mistake. I managed to post it before properly composing it. Assisted by trying to hold on to my three month old grandson. What I meant to ask was were they in the ‘aim’ or the ‘off aim ready’
Sometimes what would appear to be ‘weapons pointed’ is not in fact the case.
I am well aware I’m trying to justify their actions, but believe me many times I’m completely aghast at what’s going on.

 

[paul o']

Had it twice once including the egg beater first time two ninjas came crossed private land damaging crops shouting we can see you stand up ? But they jumped as we shouted over here end story was they were badly informed and a case was made and paid for access and crop damage as the farmer should have been found just in case he had two armed gunman shooting on his land red faces and a few chucking ninjas that were known to us as we had met then at a competitive pistol match.

2nd same thing but out foxing back when we used red lights.
Stand still big lights place the gun on the floor ect ect.
My reply was to shoulder it and tell them there future if they thought i was going to put my rifle in a **** filled pig farm ! .
Hands up walk this way sailor. Sorted one call and the lights were off carry on.
After that I'd call the controller inform them and keep a log.
After that it got to the point Essex control
would call me to see if it was me or something to act on .
Understand it's there job and who they may face and it makes most of the lads Hart race at best ! As we know there in no way infallible, so just play the game
Or do as I used to make a call yes it's very big brother and i know lots of guys that puff up and say no fecking way iam telling anyone bla bla ! Then bitch when they roll up and ruin your event.
And that wobble choppy makes everthing run away so was it worth it ?

 

[Rafter]

Why would you want to do that ?

The officers are only doing their job. And they DO get death threats made against them - the recent murder charge against one Met officer shows that’s a real issue.
I’m not sorry to step up here - I’ve been in similar situation with the blue suit on and we do take our own security quite seriously.
I am sorry someone thinks that to ‘make them famous’ is a good idea.
The above post is in reality a threat to the officers homelife, wife, partner, children.

For just doing his job.

Ask yourself a question - if you were sent to a job with minimal info but you knew someone had a weapon (possibly shotgun possibly rifle) would you be polite but firm ? Would you put them in handcuffs until you were satisfied there wasn’t a threat ?

Or would you let them dictate what was going on and end up on the wrong end of violence (think Manchester Airport recently)

In the US someone would probably have been shot.

How lucky we are in the UK that Police still deal with things with a ‘light touch’ and I read the OP and think it still was lightly handled overall.

What a lot of overblown rubbish.
The US cops have thousands of interactions with gun carrying people every week, and nobody gets shot.
As I read it, the OP had laid the rifle down to comply with walking up a steep bank with his hands up. Where was the threat?

 

[scotch_egg]

What a lot of overblown rubbish.
The US cops have thousands of interactions with gun carrying people every week, and nobody gets shot.

I’m not going to comment on the circumstances of this incident. But feel compelled to leave this here

U.S. Data on Police Shootings and Violence | Law Enforcement Epidemiology Project | University of Illinois Chicago

Data on police shootings and violence impacting civilians in the United States, as prepared by the Law Enforcement Epidemiology Project.

policeepi.uic.edu

 

[Saracen666]

This morning my friend and I had loaded weapons pointed at us, were told to walk with our hands in the air, were handcuffed, were told "you are both under arrest under suspicion of possession of a firearm", our clothes were searched searched and my car was briefly examined visually inside before "Thank you for your cooperation, sorry for the trouble but you will understand we have to investigate reports" This is not on and I would like advice as to how to stop this happening to others.

I would like to say from the start that the officers involved were very polite and I thought them all nice guys but the protocol that allowed this to happen is not fair or proportionate and I think if it is allowed to be considered as OK, then we are on a slippery slope to being guilty until proven innocent, which is a bad position to be in with a gun in your hand.

Of course we had permission, of course we didn't point guns at or near anyone. If fact we didn't point a gun at all -no deer was even seen on the permission where I have shot for years. The policeman in charge told me that he didn't know till they arrived at the scene and he took my registration that I had a FAC. To that point if you want to bring 6 or 7 cars full of armed officers and a dog team to a report of "2 males with a long barrelled weapon seen going into (private) wood (in the countryside with no footpath, exiting car parked within woodland edge from woodland facing side and walking in)" then OK if you can justify the resource allocation but from that point on, when nothing suspicious had been done and I was clearly licensed this was surely heavy handed? Surely a quiet word with an unarmed officer when we emerged from the wood to check we had permission would have been enough? Even then whose business is it to check up on law abiding citizens hunting with a weapon held for only hunting unless there has been poaching in the area or suspicion of poaching? Why should hunting be itself a suspicious activity? Is taking cash out of a bank suspicious in itself? Is driving a car away suspicious in itself?

Did I need to be arrested by armed men? did I need to be handcuffed or searched? The officer in charge said "Sorry we can't be taking chances" but if that sort of thinking is allowed to take root we will all be pushed further and further into corners afraid to assert our rights do do what we have worked hard to be given lawful permission to do. What is suspicious about someone who holds a rifle only for deer stalking to be seen deer stalking? I said to the officer "There are thousands of people out on this Christmas holiday Saturday legally shooting. Would it be right to arrest anyone seen in a field carrying a gun on a sling on their shoulder?" He just said they couldn't take chances and I should phone the police to tell them I am going hunting in advance. This is the state going too far in my opinion.

I expect a number of replies to say "You must have done something suspicious" and "We must all just accept this sort of control and interference in the interests of public safety" but I feel this is going too far. Had it been a report of drug use or burglary the police would likely never have even turned up but more people die from drugs and criminal lifestyles than from guns in this country every year, a lot more. There is a witch hunt out for guns and country sports. If we accept this as OK because we are all too scared to risk going on the naughty list next time we want to renew, where does this end?

In the interests of my fellow sportsmen, I would ideally like someone in charge to simply accept that this was a heavy handed approach and to revise the protocol. I don't know if I really want to go through the misery of pushing for this but right now I feel I should. Can anyone advise me how I would best go about this please?

Thanks

What was their actual basis for turning up?
If they suspected actual criminal firearms activity, they'd have been stupid to attend unarmed. Most counties have armed police, and all ours should be armed, in my opinion.
I wouldn't say they did anything heavy handed, they merely followed SOP.

 

[63]

I have conducted thousands upon thousands of armed ‘traffic stops’ and ‘stop and searches’ in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we/I pointed weapons at the individuals stopped until they were searched and cleared every single time, we would only relax to the ‘low ready’ once we confirmed no one was armed and had a sufficient stand off distance between them and us. I have trained and worked alongside the UK armed police, both ARV and CTFOs and they do the same if they have reason to believe the threat warrants it.

You’re welcome to think me an idiot or ill trained and I’ll cheerfully return the favour.

Always carrying in the ‘low ready’ and ‘raise, aim and fire’-ing only when you decide to engage is a ‘tactical fantasy’ - based on the way you *think* a violent incident goes down, rather than the way they *actually* do. It isn’t taught practice anywhere that I’ve ever encountered, and defies any kind of common sense.

Whether or not the perceived threat in this case justified pointing of weapons, I can’t say - I wasn’t there and I don’t know the RoE/SOP in place, or what information and context was given to the officers prior to their arrival, but if the officers were confident a firearm was present, then in a UK context (where such things are very rare) it makes complete sense.

Elsewhere on this forum we have threads discussing at length how ill-equipped police ARVs are to do humane dispatch because they ‘don’t know anything about shooting animals’. I might suggest that sporting shooters don’t automatically know anything more about gun handling in a tactical context.

To the original poster - I can understand why you were shaken up, and especially why your mate was given the extra detail you posted. Having a gun pointed at you with intent for the first time is unpleasant. It will take a week or two for the immediate emotional reaction to settle down, but maybe let that happen before you make a decision about complaining or otherwise engaging with the police on this - then you can do it deliberately and with a clearer head.

 

[63]

Always good to have another opinion, and a very well informed opinion at that. It is very interesting that you seem to have similar career path as my pal, but the opposite view on this. I have no expertise on military protocol so will not attempt to disagree with what you say on that front. However in a civilian (police) role it is clearly alarming to learn that some (or most?) forces have actively determined that “high ready” is an appropriate standard operating practice. The proportion of call outs that encounter an active, armed threat must be minuscule?

To be clear, I’ve never been a cop, but I have exercised alongside armed police and never detected any significant difference in their appetite for pointing weapons at people (but a very different approach to a whole load of other things). Your friend and I’s differing views may be due to serving in different eras or different contexts, although I must admit I am surprised he is so leery of soldiers pointing guns at people. Was he an infantryman?

To be clear, by ‘High ready’ I am taking you to mean ‘rifle in the shoulder pointing directly at the target as though about to fire’? I only ask because high ready/high port/in the shoulder are all terms used differently in different organisations.

Personally I find it bizarre that you find it so troubling? The police have firearms to shoot people with, so it stands to reason they point them at people. It doesn’t really matter how often they have to actually shoot, when they do it needs to be quick and accurate, so why start further behind the starting block? Pointing a weapon at someone as an escalation technique to demonstrate intent and gain compliance is also common sense.

I guess an equivalent would be to say you should never look at a deer through your riflescope unless you’re already 100% sure you’re going to shoot it.

 

[63]

Before anyone jumps to the wrong conclusion, I don’t go poking my rifle up people’s noses when I’m stalking/shooting, and I’m not suggesting that pointing a sporting firearm at anyone as a private individual is ever acceptable. I’m just suggesting that sporting shooting and tactical weapons use are apples and oranges.

 

[Eddie P]

Surely a rifle slung on a shoulder, carried in one hand is a low threat that doesn't need an gun aimed at the first interaction. It's not like there is a risk from a bomb vest. A low ready will still be quick enough without being so confrontational from the get go.

Going by some of the logic here, why not greet all members of the public with Tazer / PAVA drawn, just in case?

 

[markj1]

And then there are incidents like this where a minimal response happens!!

Gun terror as boy shoots ducks and geese in Central Forest Park

Police are investigating

www.stokesentinel.co.uk

From the article:

“I couldn’t make out exactly what kind of guns they were; I don’t think they were air rifles, because they weren’t gas powered. They looked like handguns. If they were trying to hunt I’m guessing they were firing metal ball bearings.

“They managed to hit a bird. It didn’t die, but it flew off in pain. I felt really sorry for the poor thing. They just carried on, they didn’t care. The lad went down on one knee like he was a soldier or something. He went right up close and just started shooting.”

By the sound of it, there were air pistols. I seriously doubt that the police would have responded the way they did if they thought that someone was shooting a firearm in a public place.

Obviously, this is illegal, reckless, dangerous to members of the public and cruel to the animals. But I can see why this is not being investigated with the same urgency as reports of someone in possession of a (say) 9mm pistol, let alone actually using it.

 

[63]

No, I think the equivalent would be pointing my loaded rifle into a car with occupants in it. I understand your point about apples and oranges, but for me it is a fundamental, and I would choose to live in a society where that is a red line.

My pal was in the Welsh Cavalry (Queen’s Dragoon Guards) as sniper specialist in Iraq and Afghanistan. Following return he was with Essex Police. He has not had the same level of close-up interaction you have had, and I am quoting him third party versus your first hand experience, but to bring this back to the OP there is (and should be) a very different approach in military SOP in a war zone versus civilian (police) SOP in a rural setting. If as an armed officer you suddenly see every call out as dealing with an enemy combatant, rather than policing through consent, then we need a fundamental restructuring of police culture.

If he was QDG I doubt his numbers are dissimilar to mine - it doesn’t take long when you’re on the streets interacting with locals constantly. He probably just hasn’t sat and done the finger maths.

We can agree to disagree about what is hypothetically or morally right; but the fundamental point remains that in practice, and whether you like it or not, physically pointing a firearm at someone is not, in policing or military training, seen as the massive rubicon it is in sporting shooting. Pointing a firearm at someone is done frequently in the military, and slightly less frequently in the Police. The rubicon line in both those contexts is actually shooting people, and covering a potential threat with a pointed firearm is in many scenarios seen as the right thing to do. Policing by consent doesn’t mean saying ‘please’ in every encounter.

So what? As shooters we need to bear in mind that if an ARV gets called on you they will perceive you, to some degree, as a threat. To what extent they regard you as a threat will depend on their individual experience and knowledge, and to a very large extent what was said on the phone (and potentially what else is going on around as per the Chequers comments above). When they turn up and you are in fact holding a firearm, it is possible they’ll point their firearms at you until everyone has figured out what is going on. Remember that as you also have a firearm you have parity with them, in terms of violent potential, so they will be seeking to ensure their safety. I imagine it is also incredibly rare for an ARV to attend an incident and find that there actually IS a firearm there, the police officer in question may well be seeing a 'civilian' with a gun in their hands for the first time. Take Uncle Jules' advice and 'Be cool'

Regards describing the UK police as seeing the public as enemy combatants in war zones....that is hyperbole akin to describing stalking as 'People torturing deer to death'. In war zones enemy combatants can (and are) shot on sight - the police did not turn up and shoot the OP, high five, then leave. To stave off the inevitable, neither Iraq (post invasion) nor Afghanistan were war zones, and neither the various militias in Iraq nor the Taliban were legally defined enemy combatants, in legal terms both were, broadly speaking, high risk policing actions. Eastern Ukraine is a 'war zone'- there's plenty of footage online if you want to establish how such things are handled in war.

Surely a rifle slung on a shoulder, carried in one hand is a low threat that doesn't need an gun aimed at the first interaction. It's not like there is a risk from a bomb vest. A low ready will still be quick enough without being so confrontational from the get go.

Going by some of the logic here, why not greet all members of the public with Tazer / PAVA drawn, just in case?

I've skated over a bit of complexity in my perspective here to challenge the assertion that the police and military should NEVER point a weapon at anyone unless they have already decided to shoot them, and that any police officer or soldier who does so is an 'idiot' and 'ill trained'. My point is that in general terms pointing weapons at people is something that the police and military do an awful lot, that it is taught to them as an appropriate part of their tool kit, and that if you are stopped by an ARV when out shooting you should recognise that it is a possibility it will happen to you. (and that if it does it probably doesn't represent an egregious miss-step by the police)

In terms of this specific incident, I personally would agree with you that pointing a weapon is on the face of it, OTT in this incident (Although we don't know how pointed it was, generally at the OPs knees, or shoved into his face?), but I would characterise it as being towards one end of a spectrum of understandable responses rather than outrageously inappropriate. We don't know very much about the Police Officers perspective on the incident going in - what were they told by the control room? What were there expectations? What was there level of experience? The OP described them as 'polite' though, so I doubt they were too assertive with him.

More broadly, I was driving at what looks to me like a hypocrisy. As sporting shooters we frequently complain that 'urban folk' (or whomever) do not understand shooting, stalking or our use of firearms in our context and seek to impose their perspectives and rules on us. Plenty of people on here have been doing exactly the same thing to 'tactical' firearms users such as the police and military. Their use of firearms, the risks they have to take and what is appropriate behaviour is different to a sporting context, and shouldn't be judged on sporting criteria any more than stalking should be judged by central London criteria.

 

[finnbear270]

Anyone points a firearm in my direction I move out of the arc of fire, with admonishments.
If I am not hold a switch & wearing a vest, OR pointing my firearm at an armed policeman / woman, I don't want them pointing theirs at me.!

 

[kenbro]

Anyone points a firearm in my direction I move out of the arc of fire, with admonishments.
If I am not hold a switch & wearing a vest, OR pointing my firearm at an armed policeman / woman, I don't want them pointing theirs at me.!

Might not be the best idea if under police instruction?
Ken.

 

[Greenmist]

Where was the threat?

Can you tell what people are carrying about there person in poor light and at a distance? Until you can confirm that physically, then there is a threat

 

[Twodogs]

In the op’s scenario, as I understand it, the issue arises once the threat has been identified, or negated, how the police act from that point onwards.

 

[finnbear270]

Might not be the best idea if under police instruction?
Ken.

Why, you think I might be shot?
Unless a shot is intended, don't point at me directly.

 

[Robinson]

We have seen tendency towards this in Norway too, and so far guns have never been the issue, but umbrellas , musical instruments and other items that someone thinks looks like a weapon. People will die from this in the end. To have a loaded firearm pointed at you is dangerous. The only thing separating life from death is a policeman's/woman's judgement. And when you get that gun pointed at you, you already know that judgement is poor.