TexasCHLforum.com

Dave2 wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

carlson1 wrote:[...]I am 210% LEO.[...]

[...]I am 210 % leo as well[...]

Just to complete the thread drift, you two realize that it's impossible to be more than 100%, right? Because 100% means "out of a maximum possible 'score' of 100, this is rates a <whatever>". But it's important to note that <whatever> can't be higher than 100. It's like the people who say they put in 110% of their effort... well, no, they just weren't giving 100% before, so the increase makes it look like they're giving more than 100% even though they aren't. (I had this same debate with my 5th grade history teacher when I got 105% on a test due to some extra credit; she didn't get it either... Everyone's always dismissive of the math pedantics... <sigh>)

So if I buy something for $20 and sell it at $300, what percentage is my markup? How about my margin?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

gigag04 wrote:TAM - which LEOs in the thread are defending the practice?

mikedude.

I see it now, I skipped to end. Just got back from 21 hr 3day round trip to Tuscaloosa. Brain. Fried.

TAM - which LEOs in the thread are defending the practice?

handog wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

handog wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dallas/I ... 72921.html

Two women are suing DPS for performing cavity searches on them on the roadside. Caught on dashcam. Also the women claim the female officer did not change her glove between searches.

Not sure what the fuss is all about. Police can arrest and conduct a cavity search for any reason, on no reason at all according to the SCOTUS. /quote]
Exactly! Now we're getting somewhere...

It depends on where you would like to go. If its a Police state and social control you're after there is progress. For those of us who believe in civil liberties well....not so much.

My response was no more than serious than yours ;)

handog wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dallas/I ... 72921.html

Two women are suing DPS for performing cavity searches on them on the roadside. Caught on dashcam. Also the women claim the female officer did not change her glove between searches.

Not sure what the fuss is all about. Police can arrest and conduct a cavity search for any reason, on no reason at all according to the SCOTUS.

Exactly! Now we're getting somewhere...

urnoodle wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

urnoodle wrote:He requested the search on bogus grounds.

You're basing this on what exactly?

The cavity search was bogus on the grounds of a smell of marijuana. These officers should have been arrested immediately as any other citizen would have been with less evidence

I don't recall him requesting a cavity search. She took it there. He just requested a female troop swing by if she wasn't busy to search two females. I'm still not sure what the first sentence of your post is implying - are you saying that the odor of narcotics alone is not PC for a search?

steveincowtown wrote:

gigag04 wrote:I'm sure that I'm alone in this, but if the troop smelled weed, then a search was reasonable. (Maybe not the manner in searching, but that was the female).

The comments and answers from the driver indicate to me that she knows that weed has been in the car recently.

Is there solid evidence pointing out that the male knew the full scope of the search? I might have missed something glaring.

Possibly. The blonde suspect tells the male trooper "I have never been searched like this...she put her finger in my....." (review the tape for the balance, don't want to violate the 10 year old daughter rule).

If the male trooper had a shred of Honor he would have immediately gone to his superior and reported the female trooper.

Understood on the fact finding, but I think they are already there.

You may feel that they are already there, but you just stated that there was POSSIBLY evidence that the male troop was privy to the level if search conducted by his partner. I agree with that statement - he might have known. I feel that it is equally as likely that he had no idea what the female was doing to those two in searching. Without more info, you and can't make an accurate determination just from the video.

I also fully agree that there should have been follow up after those comments were made. People accuse LEOs of all sorts of things all the times, but the seriousness of those comments warranted a conversation with the partner and then up the chain from there. Do we know for a fact he didn't do this? I haven't seen anything speaking to one action or the other regarding post stop follow up.



Lastly, due to the high volume of citizen complaints, people are almost never suspended w/o pay until a thorough investigation is completed. No doubt she will spend hours in front of rangers and probably some polygraph machines.

(edited to clean up iPhone posting)

I'm sure that I'm alone in this, but if the troop smelled weed, then a search was reasonable. (Maybe not the manner in searching, but that was the female).

The comments and answers from the driver indicate to me that she knows that weed has been in the car recently.

Is there solid evidence pointing out that the male knew the full scope of the search? I might have missed something glaring.

I'm not sure I would've caught it had I been on that scene, with all the other sensory inputs on a stop. Stops look different from the other side of a dash cam.

I'm good with dropping the hammer on the female. Not convinced the male blew it yet, though I could be.

My opinions on troopers as a whole are probably different than many on this board. I've seen too many kill cases on the stand and do goofy things on scene.

SIC - I'm still fact finding. Not defending anybody.

urnoodle wrote:He requested the search on bogus grounds.

You're basing this on what exactly?

Did he request the cavity search or just a search. It seems like she took it there on her own.

What are we firing the male troop for again?

Not surprised the female got her butt in a sling...trying to find where the male went wrong, but I've only had time to watch it once.

carlson1 wrote:I have smelled marijuana more than you have ever seen.

Seeing as you have never met me...much less know who I work with, I'll take the liberty to laugh at this, because clearly we aren't being serious anymore.

I'll remain disappointed - that you lied to build narcotics cases and somehow that was kosher when and where you worked. That doesn't fly now.

This is all off topic so delete the whole discourse...

carlson1 wrote:When you give them an inch they take a mile. We allow them to have "power" they should never have been given. Citizens are treated as criminals. Disarm CHL's, search vehicles under the disguise of safety, keep you standing on the side of the road for hours waiting on the "drug dog" because you stood up for your rights and refused a search, now body cavity searches because they think they smell marijuana etc. . . etc. . .

The officer's word is LAW.

Who is "them"? A handful of the +/- 75,000 peace officers in Texas?

I understand you were a former officer at one point, and a mod on this board, both of which I respect. With that, I am having a hard time reading words like "they think they smell marijuana" and not taking them personal. As someone who frequently deals with the stuff roadside, it is an easy odor to identify. Your comment seems to call into question the integrity of what I am doing. The behavior you list compiles isolated incidents that are exceptions not the rule as to how LE in TX interact withe public. With cameras on the officers lapels coming out now, and dash cameras, this is one of the most monitored professions I can think.

If I were to make a blanket post on this board making sweeping statements lumping all CHL holders on gun enthusiasts into one group and make broad statements, I wager that the post would be moved to the invisible mod forum, and I would be sent a nasty PM.

Though offended, I think mostly I am disappointed with the content of this post.

tomtexan wrote:This is terrible. Might just be an all time low for one of the most respected LEA's in the US of A.

Yeah...mostly by those outside LE