C-dub wrote:After a short break I think I've figured out what my question is.
If there is no complaint against a person and the person has a legal right to be where they are and are legally allowed to be carrying a gun, does a LEO have the right or authority to disarm them? In this case, I don't think that authority given to an officer due the person having a CHL makes a difference because he was on his own property where he could have been carrying anyway. No one called the police to complain about the man shooting a dog. No one called to complain about him walking around out front with his gun visible. I think this is the problem I'm having with this. I don't know what legal right or authority the officer had in the first place to attempt to disarm or handcuff the man. I understand an officer's desire to be in control of a scene and be the only one with a weapon, but where does that desire fall when compared to another person's rights?
If the officer was uncomfortable at this point, he should have stepped to the other side of his car and called for backup. I don't see this ending well for the officer.