TexasCHLforum.com

That's new to me... So he was charged not for the first incident, but for what happened after he was stopped?

Regardless, obviously it makes me think that RR is not CHL friendly. As such, I consider RR off limits in terms of carry.. I live nearby.

The Annoyed Man wrote: handog didn't get arrested straight away because the officers were not the witnesses to the alleged "intentional failure to conceal." It was another person, inside the building, who witnessed his exposed gun, and she called the police. He concluded his business and exited the building to the parking lot. Police arrived while he was on his way to his vehicle and drew down on him in the parking lot. THAT is where and when he was immediately arrested. Police did not witness, nor review the alleged infraction. They were too busy at the donut shop or wherever they hang out in Round Rock to see the "crime."

I'm with you.
How do you clear the fact that the officer, who did not witness the event, wrote down that handog's failure to conceal was "intentional". How do you enter that into the official record of the event if you didn't witness it? If a witness would have reported it, I'd assume that those facts would have been provided as witness statements, not direct officer evidence... In fact, if the witness (lied) and provided that information to the officer, I'd have a much lower level of concern about RR PD.

suthdj wrote:Remember the GZ trial they used his college text books to determine what he was trained on. If a LEO is trained on CHL laws I can see no excuse for not knowing however if they are not then they should conduct themselves accordingly an not let the ego rule the day.

GZ was accused of murder, not improperly arresting someone. There is going to be a different burden of scrutiny.
And I'll wager that I've already lost about 95% of what I learned in school.

mojo84 wrote: I also don't believe cops appreciate the psychological aspect of cuffing someone, especially a law abiding citizen that hasn't done anything wrong. I've never been cuffed but I can imagine how I would feel if I was and put in the back of a patrol car when I hadn't done anything wrong or anything to warrant it. I can tell you it would not be appreciated and it would raise my ire considerably. Now, if I were acting like an idiot or in a threatening way, cuff me and put me in the car. That's completely different.

I have no issue with being cuffed and stuffed, especially if it's a LEO that is taking the time to make a situation safe while he/she figures out the fine details of the law. The cuffed/stuffed, while inconvenient, and perhaps a bit intimidating, has no long term repercussions. No objection as long as the stop is legal and there is some level of suspicion there.

I have a big issue with being arrested, especially if the law doesn't support the legal reasons for that arrest. That arrest, even if dropped, is likely to cost quite a bit of money (bail/bond/towing/recovery/legal retainer) and will forever exist on the permanent legal record and may give employers a reason to think twice, IE "have you ever been arrested?"..

As my expectations are such that I don't expect LEOs to know ever fine detail of the law and I don't trust a LEO that has had a bad day to not arrest to solve the problem at hand, I go out of my way to avoid a situation where my expectations might be tested.

Dave,
I like your standards. Plano PD has pretty high standards for officers and I've had good experiences with them... Plano also has a higher end pay scale and can be more selective about who they hire. I think in my community entry level officers start out in the high 30k-40k range... I'm not saying salary guarantees better performance, but you do get a wider candidate pool to pick from.

If you really expect them to know it and think that they all do, I challenge you to ask one of your local LEOs if you can carry into a city building that has a posted 30.06. Be more specific if you want... I'll bet that you're looking at under 50% getting it right.

Dave2 wrote:We're not tasked with arresting people who violate the law.

That's true.. But if there are no or minimal repercussions for making a good "faith" arrest that happens to get dropped by a judge, how much attention do you pay to preventing those scenarios? Especially if it solves the immediate problem at hand.

Dave2 wrote: Nuances of the law? This isn't a nuanced interpretation... The law says the behavior in question isn't illegal right there in plain english. If they can get away with incomplete knowledge of the law, so can I. And since we all know I can not claim ignorance of the law as an excuse, and since we're all supposed to be equal under the law, then they can't claim it either.

I agree with you.. I'm just being the devils advocate and indicating that a payoff isn't a sure thing. Handogs case was *much* more egregious than what we are talking about here and I'll let you ask him about the legal advice he got regarding following it up via civil action. I'm simply suggesting that a sure payoff may cost a lot more than you think.

I assure you, than when it comes to comparing the public to LEOs, we are most certainly not equal under the law, regardless of what the law says.

Do you really expect all LEOs to know when 30.06 laws apply and when they don't? Now take into consideration the average educational requirements for an entry level LEO job... Still expect them to know? We know it because we're passionate about it, studied it, and re-studied it.. Yet you still see questions posted, myself included.

Dave2 wrote: Don't you have a nearly guaranteed win in court if you get arrested for something the police know isn't illegal? Something about a such-and-such civil rights case? I forget the exact colloquial name for it.

Defense Attorney: Officer, isn't it true that you knew that my client wasn't violating the law?
LEO: Yes, I knew that and arrested him anyway.

The the above playing out in court are? That's the circumstance that has a shot at paying back.

The claim is going to be that they can't possibly know all the nuances of the law, which is absolutely true... It's easy to demonstrate how complex just that little section of the law is. It's pretty easy to conclude that if a LEO didn't know he/she was acting in reasonable good faith.

Handog has a pretty good example of an officer acting in what I'd consider bad faith. That officer arrested him and indicated handog's intent. It's the intent which made failure to conceal illegal, so clearly the officer, likely after some review (as handog didn't get arrested straight away), KNEW that law well enough, but arrested him anyway. As far as I know, no legal pay back and no legal repercussion to RR PD, even though there is no reported factual basis for writing down that the exposure was intentional. Don't know what I'm talking about? Review: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=31719

RoyGBiv wrote: I'm as diligent as I can be about checking the status of places I'm planning to go.... Then I go.

I think that's a great plan and a great example.