TexasCHLforum.com

speedsix wrote:...gigag04's right on with his logic...I think any straight judge'd buy it...I've searched many a car because an empty holster or some loose bullets were there...if you step in it in the yard, prolly a dog nearby...

"One size fits all" law enforcement?

Shameful IMO.

b32da wrote:

My lifetime dedication to, and service to, the Rule of Law, just cannot let this statement be ignored.

Please inform me as to your profession, so I will know how to respond to this. In the course of your dedication to the LAW, I will assume you also considered the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

What would you do with the other eleven on that jury?

What I always do....when on a jury. Listen carefully and respectfully to the thoughts of others. If there is disagreement...I clearly state WHY and ask for more discussion. But, you have made an Assumption that the other eleven would take a position opposite of mine, convenient for your argument...but not likely in real life. BTW....more times than not...I am selected Jury Foreman...and I do NOT go into the jury room with a pre-decided position.

Pull your illegal-in-the-courtroom gun on them to force them to vote for acquittal as you ignore your duty as a juror to follow the instructions of the judge?

This is just so bizarre...I don't even know how to answer it. Please clarify!

Or force a mistrial and a new trial with you off the jury?

Well...now, you've really painted me as the ominous decenter, huh? Wild guess..(you are/were a DA)?

Do you think you would ever be on the jury in such a case after you tell the DA, defense counsel, and judge, at voir dire, that you have already made up your mind as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant simply because of what you have learned from the media?

How did you extract this from what I have written here? IF the same information presented in the news article were presented in court (as testimony/evidence), and NO substantial rebuttal made (beyond what gigag offered), then YES..my decision would be as stated. Did that really throw you?

Or would you continue to rant from a jail cell after you lie and tell them that you can be an impartial juror, and your post here is made known to the judge?

I believe any judge worth his salt....would NOT have read into it...what you did. I've been on about 12 Juries in my lifetime and never lied about anything. Apparently...during voir dire, both attorneys have been suitably impressed that I would be impartial.

When you put it on the internet you may assume that the whole world knows it.

Thank you...for that epiphany.

gigag04 wrote:I had a chance to chew on this some more, and it still seems crazy that one would not instantly think gun when they see a holster being worn. It's easy to armchair quartback and say of course he didn't have a gun. But when it's your butt on the line, and your families' well being at stake, you will think differently I assure you. Especially with the number of slain officers this year.

Now we seem to have taken a different course.

We've had the "Officer Safety at all costs" discussions before. That wasn't at all at play in this circumstance.

I partially understand the hyper-sensitivity....since the scene was at a School, but I still think the officers acted on a whole lot of "better safe than sorry"....than they did on any articulable (reasonable) suspicion.

gigag04 wrote:I think you miss understand probable cause and reasonable suspicion. I did not say holster = gun. I said often times, in my experience holster CAN mean gun. As I read the account i feel i could articulate it and convince a jury.

Could be.

Some folks can sell Ice Cubes to Eskimos and Locusts to Farmers.

But, it would never fly if I were on that jury.

Gigag wrote:

I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. I think an officer would have an easy time articulating reason to believe a weapon was present. "...

Really?

Sir, in my training and experience I recognize that a holster worn on the person is often accompanied by a handgun.

In your training and experience…did you also happen to notice that the handgun will be IN the holster (unless in the persons hand)? It is a point worth noting, no?

I observed that a handgun was not present in the holster, and believed that the defendant may have been concealing it elsewhere on his person.

Why? Did any of the officers SEE a bulge under clothing, did the young man make any furtive moves, do we have ANYTHING else to suggest that he might have a handgun on him? What would be the purpose of someone concealing a handgun while conspicuously wearing a holster?

I asked the defendant whether he possessed a handgun, and he refused to answer.

No one (according to the account) asked him if he possessed a handgun, but let’s run with that anyway.

Suppose you did ask…and the person answered NO. Are you good with that? I think NOT…because the person could be lying and you’ve already demonstrated that you believe HOLSTER= gun, right?

I am hoping that you don’t also think the inverse is true: NO HOLSTER= no gun. (I know you don’t).
Quite a few thugs carry their handgun “tucked in front” of their pants.

I’m guessing pretty much everyone there had on a pair of pants. Wouldn’t you be justified in “checking” them too?

Or would it better to have at least SOMETHING else to go on?

I asked the defendant for consent to search his person. The defendant refused.

Of course he refused, he wasn’t doing anything wrong and if you had a clear reason to check him…you wouldn’t need his consent anyway.

Based on my belief that a holster (paraphernalia for a weapon if you will...) is often accompanied by a handgun, I determined that the reasonable suspicion for a Terry frisk was met.

It’s a good thing you are not a surgeon then. For instance….“Brain Tumors” are always found in the “Brain” (when they exist), that doesn’t mean you need to do exploratory surgery on every person just because they have the “paraphernalia”.

The defendant prevented us from conducting a search, and further refused to leave the premises when commanded to do so by a peace officer....ETC

Defendant did NOT “prevent” LEO from doing anything. He refused (denied permission) for a seach, big difference. As to the legality of LEO commanding a person to leave the premises, they may have been within their rights in this case, I can’t say.

if I'm talking to someone, and I see a holster, you bet I'm asking/checking that person for weapons.

I fear this is true.

"progressive policing"?