At the same time, if the Officer admits to unholstering the weapon, then he must justify why he unholstered it. If his explanation is vague etc, then the fact that he unholstered the weapon might be grounds alone to discipline him giving the totality of circumstances.
Does that mean that a citizen can say, unsling an AR-15 at a traffic stop because the police officer "might" try to harm him? Some libertarian anarchists seem to advocate just that.
At the end of the day, if the only justification that the officer can give is: "Well, the kid might of had a weapon and might be inclined to harm me" , then that officer should be toast.
Last edited by Cryptic; 04-04-14 at 02:54 PM.
I've been there and done that and can comfortably tell you that the cops who are most aggressive cause the most problems.
While it's a good idea to assess each situation based on the idea that there may be a threat it's a bad idea to respond as if there IS a threat until you've got good reason to believe that's the case.