Las Vegas News, Sports, Business, Entertainment and Classifieds

Las Vegas Review-Journal - Opinion

Saturday
Jul 31, 2010
Clouds And Sun
Clouds And Sun 101° Weather Forecast

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

sponsored by
Opinion


VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Handcuffed, disarmed for obeying the law
RELATED STORY



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.

Over the past three years, his office has been broken into five times. "Three of those occasions involved me interacting with Metro," he wrote to me recently. "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."


Most Popular Stories
  1. Hispanics and illegal immigration
  2. Do as I say, not as I do
  3. Taxpayers can't afford scholarship
  4. Giving the business
  5. Appointing judges would give voters more say
  6. Feel-good hits of the summer



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.

"Vin, I hope I did not see the future this morning," Charlie e-mailed me. "Today was drastically different."

The responding officer was a lady cop, officer J. Rogers, badge number 13525.

"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.' "

Officer Rogers stripped Mr. Mitchener of the Glock 19 he was carrying, took the weapon and locked it in her patrol car.

"Bear in mind that she had yet to clear my office (she was waiting for backup for clearing)," Charlie writes. "So, while remote, there was the possibility that the bad guys were still in my office and would come rushing out, finding me, to their delight, handcuffed. Apparently I was not included in her comment 'that we were all safe.' It is always nice when law-abiding citizens, particularly myself, are disposable.

"An hour or so later, when she had completed her paperwork, she came back in the office; I was in the rear and did not see her enter. She came to me and said that she had put my weapon in the second drawer on the left in the receptionist's desk.

"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. She replied that the reason she did what she did was because she did not know if I was a bad guy or not. ... I thought to myself, 'How absurd, I apply by the law to obtain permits, and yell it from the housetop that I have a permit and am carrying, just as I presume all bad guys do.'

"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."

Another officer told Charlie that, based on J. Rogers' badge number, she had probably only been on her own for less than six months and was probably not secure in what she was doing. "It certainly makes me want to provide all the information the next time my office is broken into," he adds.

I talked to Charlie on Tuesday. He had called the concealed permit division that morning, and been referred to Internal Affairs, where he reports a detective told him, "It all depends on the officers, that if they think it's the safest thing to do they can do that. And he said it's best not to bring a weapon in this kind of situation."

Ah. So after going through all the rigmarole required to obtain a concealed weapons permit, it's best if a business owner who is the first to arrive at his office in the dawn hours to find it's been broken into not carry a weapon? Where the hell would the cops suggest would be a better circumstance into which to carry our legal self-defense weapon -- a toddler's birthday party at Chuck E. Cheese?

I contacted Metro about this incident Tuesday. Late Friday, a spokesman confirmed Mr. Mitchener's account as "generally accurate," stating the officer "acted in a way that was in the interest of her safety."

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," he writes.

We should not be required to apply for any "permit" to carry a concealed weapon in the first place. Despite this, Mr. Mitchener did everything required of him by law, ordinance and Metro instructions.

The officer handcuffed and disarmed him "so that everyone would be safe"? What a bunch of bull. If the burglar or burglars had emerged, they would have been confronted not by two armed law-abiding good guys, but instead by one small, frightened officer and a handcuffed and disarmed legal occupant. This rendered Mr. Mitchener "safer"?

Please note that if Mr. Mitchener had not followed law, ordinance, and Metro request, if he had carried a firearm in his waistband without ever seeking a permit or informing the officer he had it, the tiny officer would have had no probable cause to disarm him, and he would likely have remained armed throughout the entire encounter. Thus, he was punished, degraded, and treated like a common criminal because and only because he attempted to follow law, ordinance and Metro's legally dubious "instructions."

The cops don't get it. The Constitution does not say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless such infringement makes an officer of the government feel safer." The biggest reason the American populace are armed was never to fight off bears or wild Indians but to make agents of the government feel unsafe -- really, really unsafe -- should they try to take away our rights. That's why a citizen militia is "necessary to the security of a free state."

If these arrogant, uniformed employees of ours really want to treat us as the enemy, they may eventually get their wish, at which point they will discover they're vastly outnumbered -- and "backup" is never quite close enough to solve the problem they've created for themselves.

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

 

Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal, and author of "Send in the Waco Killers" and the novel "The Black Arrow." See www.vinsuprynowicz.com/ and www.lvrj.com/blogs/vin/.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Comments (247)

Share your thoughts on this story.

Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.

Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

X

Register to comment

* Indicates fields that are required
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Male Female

Already registered? Log in now

X

Already registered to comment?

Log in below
E-mail
Password

Forgot your password? | Register
X

Forgot your password?

Enter your e-mail address below and a password will be resent to you.

Email
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.

Report abuse

Ron wrote on May 09, 2010 07:30 PM: Same thing happened to me. State Trooper pulls me over, I tell him I have permit. I tell him that I do not my Detective Special with me. I am a teacher. He ordered me to place my hands on the top of the door. Takes me out of the car and handcuffs me. First time in my 45 years on earth. He looks in the glove compartment, sees that I have no guns in the glove compartment. He then asks me about my Heckler and Koch sticker on the back of my car. I tell him, that gun is also at home. He lets me go and I am late for work and a good number of my students witnessed this and were telling people in the school that I was arrested in front of the school.


Report abuse

rb wrote on April 06, 2010 06:51 PM: This female officer simply should be terminated. We do not pay taxes to employ LEO's that can only function at the expense and safety of those of us who are paying their salaries. He's bigger than you, go home and bake cookies. Hire a person, female if you wish that can do and will do the job. Metro you would be better serve if you stop attempting to cover up a fake in uniform at the expense of the department. Believe it or not we wish to respect and support you. We who legally carry are often time war veterans who in a jam may actually save your rookie non combat beacon. In the case of the involved officer, seems to me she was working to assist the thugs, fortunately there were not any in the end. J. Rogers 13525, you need to quit before you get yourself or even worst someone else killed.


Report abuse

Chunk wrote on February 16, 2010 08:12 PM: Something forgotten. If business owners in LV are treated like this...why would I want to go there and drink a few and blow TONS of money fearing this cop might fear me? I guess PR is out of the question. I'll spend my cash and hotel fees somewhere else!

When "we the people" give cops the "power and safety" of the shield, not to mention salary, they need to know and honor where that comes from. CVM


Report abuse

Max wrote on February 14, 2010 02:41 PM: This officer needs remedial training on the 2nd and 4th amendments as well as the local rules for private citizens rights/responsibilities for possessing firearms. While there is a lawsuit in here, it is not a get rich kind. The officer should be made to extend an apology to the business owner and an official reprimand should be placed in her personnel file.


Report abuse

Matt Davis wrote on February 11, 2010 02:03 PM: This lady needs to lose her job over this.

And, I'd be willing to bet that she didn't score 100% on her accuracy exam. There are plenty of recreational shooters that can probably out-shoot a cop any day of the week, mostly because the practice more.

Sad that a woman like this is so ignorant.

Fire her. Hire a new cop that knows how to handle this situation and protect the 2nd ammendment.


Report abuse

cbs wrote on February 01, 2010 10:22 PM: as the ariving officer after i got your permit and some ID. I would have asked what buisiness you had at the store,and if anyone else was in the building. At this point lets say I feel uncomfortable I would ask if he was packing. Then I would say it's prodocal that I take controle of the weapon while I run your bg and clear you. I would ask him to follow me to my patrole car just in case the thugs come back. After he cleared and a few more questions I would return the gun to him opolagize for protocall and finish my report. have a good day with the info told,I would not have cuffed. Though with info told she made a reasoable disition to cuff.


Report abuse

Don't Tread On Me wrote on February 01, 2010 01:04 PM: The "whatever the officer feels is safe" excuse is incredulous! Does that mean the police can do ANYTHING, violate ANY right if it makes them feel "safe"? A good example would be they could search any vehicle they pull over without probable if it made them feel "safe".

Handcuffing was false arrest/violation of 4th amendment.

Taking of the gun was theft. He should file a police report and name her as the offender.

The officer in question (and possibly the whole department) should be trained in constitutional rights.

I would visit an attorney and see about going to federal court. It should be an open and shut case. Tons of precedent on this topic.




Report abuse

Steve wrote on January 31, 2010 09:03 PM: I'm no lawyer but it sounds to me like Mr. Mitchener was placed under arrest for a perfectly legal act. The cops may think it's OK but it can't be legal. I suppose officer safety would be greatly enhanced if we had no civil rights at all.
Get a good lawyer and sue!


Report abuse

troubledPatriot wrote on January 31, 2010 09:13 AM: I agree that the actions of the police officer are in question here. Further, I do believe a lawsuit for false arrest are in order. Bring that police officer into court to answer for their actions, they are not above the law themselves (though many think so). Frankly, that is reason lawsuits were made so easy to pursue in this country, to stop such abuses of civil liberty.


Report abuse

Disgusted in America wrote on January 30, 2010 11:33 PM: Maybe the business owner should have checked for the bad guys for the scared cop and THEN if it was safe, let her know she could go pretend to be an officer and check it out. I agree with this article in the fact that it seems this is why no one wants to tell the police the truth. I work in law enforcement and it DISGUSTS me how Officers are literally encouraged by administration to punish people the same for telling the truth as they would if they had lied. Me personally, I follow the wishes of the forefathers RELIGIOUSLY. If someone tells the truth, they should be dealt with as an honest person. It seems the government is SLOWLY taking away our rights. If it is done slow enough... maybe no one will notice??? Wake up people!!! You have the RIGHT to question authority. It's called the right to free speech. Your First Amendment RIGHT. If you are respectful and not physically aggressive about it, you should be fine. And if not, you'll have one hell of a lawsuit... that is, if the cop doesn't make up a "disorderly conduct" charge against you. On second thought, you First Amendment RIGHT is more of an illusion or privilege nowadays.


Read All Comments