TexasCHLforum.com

JP171 wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote: Not well put. I know everybody would like to think everything get to be perfectly "fair", it isn't. The law is not written giving you the same amount of rights as an officer, or to make either actions mean the same. The officer can do things you can't in a flip flopped point of view.

Can you start digging around in your pocket just because the officer did? Is it unfair that it 's seen as a possible threat to the officer, but not to you? It seems like ya'll WANT to think you have a defense to prosecution if you pull your gun on an officer , or because you shoot an officer, because you "FELT" threatened by the officers actions. The law clearly defines the use of force you may use against an officer.

And by the same token, there are things that a "civilian" can do, that the officer cannot. There are few things in life that are truly "fair", and sometimes that's as it should be.

POLICE OFFICERS ARE CIVILIANS!!!! please stop using that term to indicate non police officers

I've always thought that too.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/ci" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;·vil·ian

\sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\ noun

: a person who is not a member of the military or of a police or firefighting force
Full Definition
1
:a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2
a one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force
b outsider 1

The Annoyed Man wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Lol at duty holsters with snaps!

Are they dating themselves a bit?

I appreciate the wisdom of from the "dated".

A friend gave me a sack of old holsters he inherited from his father. They all have old school leather straps and snaps.

VMI77 wrote:Regardless of what's fair or not fair, common sense is in order if you don't want a LEO to shoot you during a traffic stop. I highly doubt there are any cases where a LEO just shoots someone he pulled over for no reason. There may be cases where it's not a particularly good reason, but if you move in such a way that it can be perceived as a threat...reaching into a pocket, reaching under the seat, reaching for the glove box, you're increasing the odds that you might get shot. I don't think the risks are equal..IOW, the LEO's risk of being shot is significantly greater than the risk of an innocent driver being shot by a LEO, so I don't think it's realistic to treat such moves by a driver or passenger in a vehicle as equivalent to the same moves by a LEO standing exposed outside a vehicle.

That's all great and I agree. However, that is not what happened according the original post. I think people are taking it too literal when people say mutual respect and self control for both ways. A cop getting anxious and showing that anxiousness over someone simply having a chl is not the norm nor is it appropriate.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

handog wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

C-dub wrote:

handog wrote:

C-dub wrote:This thread has taken an interesting turn. Unsnapping or releasing one or two retention devices is not an aggressive act, but does it rise to the level of the threat of deadly force? I see officers rest their hand on the grip of their gun often. Most of the time it is just a place to rest their hand. However, in an instant such as the OP described, that's not the case. There seems to be a fine line here and I'm not sure when or why it is okay for a LEO to cross over it, while I am not.

If the OP reached for his gun and released its retention do you think the LEO would have considered it an act of aggression ?

Getting on a little later tonight.

In order for the OP or anyone's action of releasing retention and reaching for their gun to have the same effect as the officer's, wouldn't it have to be intentionally unconcealed? Otherwise, if retention was released and your hand was on your gun and it remained concealed the officer would never know. The officer doesn't have that ability since their sidearm is out there for all to see.

If the CHL holder makes ANY move toward their gun (such as releasing retention) during a traffic stop, then it should (rightfully) be considered by a LEO to be an aggressive maneuver.

If it's aggressive when the CHL holder does it, then it's also aggressive when the LEO does it.

This is particularly true in the situation described in the OP in which the officer went from a "friendly and non confrontational manner" to a situation where the officer "reacted badly ... placed her left hand on her pistol, removed the retention, stepped back behind me, and demanded in a shrill voice "ARE YOU ARMED!" ... (snip) ... She asked "WHERE IS IT!"

This isn't LEO-bashing, rather it's normalizing the behavior so that it is interpreted the same way for both individuals. Justifying the action as different (by any means) is an unfair (and likely biased) assessment.

Well put.

Not well put. I know everybody would like to think everything get to be perfectly "fair", it isn't. The law is not written giving you the same amount of rights as an officer, or to make either actions mean the same. The officer can do things you can't in a flip flopped point of view.

Can you start digging around in your pocket just because the officer did? Is it unfair that it 's seen as a possible threat to the officer, but not to you? It seems like ya'll WANT to think you have a defense to prosecution if you pull your gun on an officer , or because you shoot an officer, because you "FELT" threatened by the officers actions. The law clearly defines the use of force you may use against an officer.

I don't think I, nor anyone else, is saying it's ok to mess with your gun, dig in your pockets or shoot a cop because the cop makes someone feel uncomfortable.

Hyperbole aside, what I do think people are saying it is normal and reasonable for a citizen that is being stopped for a mere traffic violation to feel uncomfortable if the cop gets excited and anxious and then prepares their weapon to be drawn just because someone hands them a chl when ID is requested.

It is unreasonable to expect someone not to react or have thoughts based upon the demeanor and actions of another in a similar situation. If a citizen being stopped it is acting nervous and evasive, the officer will pick up on that and respond accordingly. If the cop is acting nervous and excited, think Barney Fife, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the citizen to view that as an unpleasant encounter. Hence the title of this thread.

The scenario presented is that the officer reacted to the OP's chl the way she did. There are many other scenarios where that reaction would be considered appropriate.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:To the OP, was the PoPo nervous before mentioning the CHL, or only after?
if only after, that would seem...well naive to me. This is Texas. I'd have a default expectation that there's firearms in the vehicle.

I handed her my dl and chl with my left hand while keeping my right hand on the wheel and returned my left hand to the top of the wheel.

She reacted badly ... placed her left hand on her pistol, removed the retention, stepped back behind me, and demanded in a shrill voice "ARE YOU ARMED!" Calmly stated that i was armed. She asked "WHERE IS IT!". Calmly stated on my right hip. Was instructed "not to reach for it", She asked again for the insurance card, calmly told her that the card was in the glove box and asked if she would be ok with me opening the glove box to produce the card ....

Sounds like it was a response to the chl to me.

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote: Sure. And tone and body language is so subjective and when you are there you can be so positive but can't necessarily say why you know something. I just figure, by the description given, that at worst the cop was a bit overcautious for the OP taste. There doesn't seem to be any real activity that anyone could complain about except she had her hand near or on her gun which may just be how she was trained. Being so new she may still follow all her academy training to the letter. I guess my point being if that is something to complain about then why would people listen when something wrong does happen.

Shouldn't this go both ways? I think when officers see someone they stop acting overly nervous, it brings suspicion and doubt into their minds. When a cop is acting overly nervous, it should be concerning to the person with whom they are dealing. It doesn't appear based on the post, the OP did anything to justify a higher level of alertness or caution than normally would be justified on a traffic stop of a citizen.

Cops should always be alert, attentive, cautious and aware when stopping individuals. Preparing to draw their weapon just because someone hands them their ID's when asked, doesn't seem to warranted.

You're trying to take my statement somewhere it was never meant to go. I was referring to the fact that even using colorful, and a bit hyperbolic, language it's hard to point to anything the officer did that is actually, well, wrong. I wouldn't want to dismiss the OP's concerns because sometimes you have to be there and I wasn't but we are mainly talking about the was she made him "feel" and not what she actually did. For all I know she was real concerned but so what. Her actions were not in and of themselves wrong so now we have people complaining because the cops don't treat CHL's like some sort of police reserves like some on here think they are? Even taking the OP's statement at face value it seems to me there is just so much more to worry about that a cop who dislikes or is concerned about CHLs but doesn't do anything but act cautiously when encountering one.

Like I said, both ways? If action is justified by "feelings" alone, maybe the OP felt threatened by the nervous cop's actions of preparing her weapon to be drawn. If there was any other indicator that the OP may have been a danger in addition to having a chl, I could understand why the cop was so nervous and extra causious. Based on the op, I don't think the level of nervousness was warranted.

EEllis wrote: Sure. And tone and body language is so subjective and when you are there you can be so positive but can't necessarily say why you know something. I just figure, by the description given, that at worst the cop was a bit overcautious for the OP taste. There doesn't seem to be any real activity that anyone could complain about except she had her hand near or on her gun which may just be how she was trained. Being so new she may still follow all her academy training to the letter. I guess my point being if that is something to complain about then why would people listen when something wrong does happen.

Shouldn't this go both ways? I think when officers see someone they stop acting overly nervous, it brings suspicion and doubt into their minds. When a cop is acting overly nervous, it should be concerning to the person with whom they are dealing. It doesn't appear based on the post, the OP did anything to justify a higher level of alertness or caution than normally would be justified on a traffic stop of a citizen.

Cops should always be alert, attentive, cautious and aware when stopping individuals. Preparing to draw their weapon just because someone hands them their ID's when asked, doesn't seem to warranted.