TexasCHLforum.com

texasmr2 wrote:One thing you must or will hopefully realize someday is that LEO's are NEVER off duty.

Then they should never have to work after-hours for private security or put in for overtime pay.

texasmr2 wrote:CHL holders are held to high standards simply because they are NOT LEO's and do not have the training but CHL's have been alloted the priviledge of carrying a deadly weapon.

CHLs have shown that they meet "high standards" by their lack of criminal record and clean background check. Most members of this forum would say that CHL is a constitutional right, which has no training criteria, rather than a privilege.

texasmr2 wrote:I'm not really sure if you can or ever will be able to comprehend the level of humanity and restraint that is required to be a LEO simply by the fact that you have issue's with LEO's option's of carry. I will be graduating a police academy in May and I cannot express in mere word's the thing's I have learned about becoming a LEO or myself. Law enforcement is not for everyone or for everyone to understand, either you get it or you don't.

And when did you finally "get it?" Before you entered the police academy, while you were at the academy, when you graduated from the academy, after you became a sworn member of law enforcement or after 10 years on the job?

texasmr2 wrote:I almost forgot to mention that by your assessment of LEO's lead's me to believe that you have had a bad experience in the past am I correct? If so you are carrying a grudge against all LEO's and cannot let go of the past, no LEO is perfect and I doubt you are either.

I am not perfect and that is why I carry a perpetual grudge against all LEOs who have a superiority complex towards "civilians" and those who have an impertinent and condescending attitude against law-abiding citizens.

srothstein wrote:But then you ask a second question about it being right or wrong. This is not necessarily related to the law at all. If he was exposing the gun to deliberately intimidate the plaintiffs, the judge should have taken immediate action. This could be interpreted as a felony (retaliation). It certainly tends to corrupt the justice system further than it is already. Even if the judge did not notice it, the people involved should be filing a complaint with the Houston Police Department over the intimidation. I am sure they have some rules about things of that nature, and may even have rules about concealing off duty weapons.

IMO, this should have been reported to the judge. The judge could have ordered him to disarm and have him ejected from the courtroom. The son's LEO status is not relavent in this lawsuit. Announcing his status after exposing a handgun could prejudice the jury. I would think that if this happened after the jury was selected the judge could/should have declared a mistrial. IANAL, but this isn't a courtroom.