TexasCHLforum.com

AFJailor wrote:I think Its rediculous that you find it necessary to insult other professions. Odin did nothing of the sort, he was simply stating that an LEO possess's more training and tools to defend themselves than say, a 7/11 clerk.

In the interest of turning down the heat on this debate, let me explain that I was not insulting other professions; I was restating in plainer language what I inferred from Odin's statement. I tried to make it clear that I disagreed with that position, but if I failed to adequately communicate that, I apologize. Odin says I misunderstood him too, so I apologize for that as well.

I also find it funny that you just used the worn out cliche that you are so tired of.

I used it to point out that I am just like everyone else, whether they be deep-sea fishermen or CPAs, and that my desire to go home at the end of the day doesn't outweigh theirs, nor does it confer authority outside of what is found in the law.

The "cliche" comes in when it's used to justify taking extra-legal (and sometimes il-legal) measures.

Kevin

Odin wrote:

KBCraig wrote:I appreciate the risks that police take, but I do get a bit tired of the worn-out cliche of "just trying to survive my shift".

When it comes to dangerous jobs, police officers don't even make the top 10 list. They might get more physical, and even get injured, but they don't get killed on the job nearly as often as people think. Farmers are more than twice as likely as police officers to die on the job.

That is only because police officers continuously train, are vigilant, and are prepared to counter the danger they face daily. Farmers and convenience store clerks, etc... may have higher rates of death per capita, but if they took the same steps that LEO's take to protect themselves they would be much lower on the list. So it's not that police work isn't more dangerous, it's that the other folks are less cautious and prepared.

Ah, so it's because other professions are stupid, untrained, and ill-prepared. They must deserve it, then.

Don't forget: I am a LEO. Yes, I want to make it home at the end of my shift. I also realize that my risks are much lower than the night clerk at Motel 6, even though (unlike me), the night clerk isn't initiating confrontational situations with those who seek to do him harm. If some thug seeks to do me harm, it's because I've at least intruded on his life in some way, and if I'm more cautious and prepared than cab drivers and convenience store clerks, it's because my job description involves whacking hornet's nests, not knowing which one of them contains live hornets.

AFJailor wrote:

KBCraig wrote:When it comes to dangerous jobs, police officers don't even make the top 10 list.

Well why dont you go say that to the families of the 186 police officers who died in the line of duty last year.

Right after you go complain about how dangerous police work is, to the families of all the convenience store clerks, cab drivers, fishermen, loggers, etc., who were killed at work.

Honestly, it's not even debatable. Just google "most dangerous jobs". You'll find all sorts of data.

I appreciate the risks that police take, but I do get a bit tired of the worn-out cliche of "just trying to survive my shift".

When it comes to dangerous jobs, police officers don't even make the top 10 list. They might get more physical, and even get injured, but they don't get killed on the job nearly as often as people think. Farmers are more than twice as likely as police officers to die on the job.

Odin wrote:An officer is permitted to disarm a CHL holder while on a stop for the safety of the officer,

The law clearly says that an officer may only disarm a CHL holder when he reasonably believes doing so is necessary for the safety of himself, the CHL, or a third party. (Or, as of 9/1/07, when entering a secure area where proper signs are posted and secure storage is provided for the handgun.)

Every time an officer disarms a CHL as a matter of law, he exceeds his legal authority.

My opinion is that if you are in possession of a handgun that is not on your person that the best options is to tell you to leave the weapon where it is, and depending on the situation possibly have you exit the vehicle while leaving the weapon in the vehicle. Taking possession of the weapon means that 2 people will have to handle the weapon in the course of the stop which seems unnecessary to me and creates more potential for problems than leaving the weapon in the vehicle. But not everyone shares that opinion.

I absolutely agree: the less handling, the safer. Especially for officer who have never been trained on anything other than their department-issued Glock -- I really don't like the idea of them clearing a Condition One 1911.

CHL/LEO wrote:

Then it would no longer be in your possession, custody, or control, or not a potential threat to the officer.

Not true- courts have ruled that if it was within reach while you were in the vehicle, then it still can be searched. The reason being is that once the LEOs allow you back into the car then you would have access to the weapon and could thus engage the officer.

The officer has the option of leaving first. End of problem.