TexasCHLforum.com

texanjoker wrote:

C-dub wrote: Yes and I was only curious to know if the disarmament was required. When I asked what would have happened if he had left his gun in the house no one said that it would have been confiscated for the duration of the investigation. Because of that, I didn't think getting the gun that he shot the dog with was required.

Disarming the guy is for officer safety. What I posted is part of what would be used to show why the officer needed to disarm the person. If he had left the gun in the house as asked or surrendered it as asked they would have investigated. Had they determined this had been an incident of him protecting himself they most likely wouldn't have taken the gun at all. They would have written a report up, called animal control and taken photos.

For the officer's sake I hope the guy was agitated. It would certainly make his attempt to handcuff and disarm the man more palatable to everyone. After all, how many times have we heard about court cases saying that the mere presence of a gun is not enough reason to stop someone and require a search or in some states to even identify one's self? We don't know all the facts of this incident yet, but for others it sure seems that some officers disarm people just because they can rather than out of any real fear. Although the law gives LEOs the authority or right to do that what bothers me about it is that in the name of officer safety we loose a little bit of our freedom. And that is starting to sound like something else familiar.

texanjoker wrote:

C-dub wrote:

Excaliber wrote: it was the complainant's actions that set the events in motion.

I'm still not completely convinced of this. He is mostly at fault because he resisted the lawful actions of the officer.

The deceased was not breaking any laws by openly carrying on his own property, right?

And it has been stated that the officer had the authority or right to disarm him. Okay, but was it required? Did the officer feel threatened. Did he need to disarm him or was it merely policy or his desire?

The deceased suspect shot a dog. (suspect in the shooting of a dog and aggravated assault on a public servant). The police had the right to detain him and investigate this potential criminal offense. Had the suspect used some common sense he would be alive today. I do not fault any officer that disarms an armed suspect that just fired a gun, refuses to put the gun away when instructed by dispatch, refuses to comply with a uniformed officers lawful commands, ect. That is basic officer safety. Not disarming a suspect that did all that would concern me. That is a lot different than some guy simply open carrying on his own property and a leo showing up wanting to disarm him for the heck of it.

Yes and I was only curious to know if the disarmament was required. When I asked what would have happened if he had left his gun in the house no one said that it would have been confiscated for the duration of the investigation. Because of that, I didn't think getting the gun that he shot the dog with was required.

Excaliber wrote: it was the complainant's actions that set the events in motion.

I'm still not completely convinced of this. He is mostly at fault because he resisted the lawful actions of the officer.

The deceased was not breaking any laws by openly carrying on his own property, right?

And it has been stated that the officer had the authority or right to disarm him. Okay, but was it required? Did the officer feel threatened. Did he need to disarm him or was it merely policy or his desire?

Jumping Frog wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Ok, so now we are advocating killing an LEO who has done nothing wrong, illegal, or immoral?

I am shocked some cops have an "us vs them" mentality...

I think it is crystal clear that I was opposing that notion. Agreed?

I certainly wouldn't either and especially in this case where the man's life was not in danger. I do believe that this officer acted appropriately and as probably any one of us would have if someone pointed a gun at us. The only part I was curious about was if the attempt to disarmed and then to handcuff him was legal or not under the circumstances.

Keith B wrote:

C-dub wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Text of the warrant. Interesting observations from the witness which seems to support the officer's version of the story.

http://content.austin.ynn.com/ausconten ... arrant.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Probably preemptive but I'm enjoying time off so...

[ Image ]

Great picture!

No new information in there. It says the dispatcher advised him to leave his gun inside. They do that on every 911 call I've ever heard when the victim says they shot the BG. Other than being alive, how do you think this would have gone if he had left the gun in the house?

Yeah, there is new informaiton. Witness says he observed officer and individual 'in a stand-off' with guns pointed at each other. If I am involved in a stand-off with someone that has a gun pointed at me, I am gonna pull the trigger. In this case, the deceased apprently made a very poor decision to pull his weapon and fight with an officer.

Sorry. I thought that part was obvious and the witness just happened to look over at the right time. I wonder how long of a stand-off that might have been. How long would any of you guys wait while someone else has a gun pointed at you before pulling the trigger on yours? I can't imagine that would be very long. Plus, how often have we heard someone that witnessed some traumatic event like say that time seemed to slow down.

gigag04 wrote:Text of the warrant. Interesting observations from the witness which seems to support the officer's version of the story.

http://content.austin.ynn.com/ausconten ... arrant.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Probably preemptive but I'm enjoying time off so...

[ Image ]

Great picture!

No new information in there. It says the dispatcher advised him to leave his gun inside. They do that on every 911 call I've ever heard when the victim says they shot the BG. Other than being alive, how do you think this would have gone if he had left the gun in the house?

Please don't mistake my questions or concern for a pitchfork and torch. If the deceased was in the wrong then I'm fine with that. It's sad that he died as a result of his stubbornness or the officer's mistake whichever way it turns out. I don't know which one was wrong and don't think I've said I think one way or the other.

I also understand handcuffing a BG to disarm them. And I've seen the penal code Keith B posted. I don't think of this guy as a BG though. I see him as a victim that was attacked and had to defend himself. Are victims that have been attacked by another person and defend themselves with a gun treated the same way? I'll also speculate that most people are more likely to comply with an officer's "request" to surrender or put the gun down when they approach after an incident. And I also agree that once the officer was starring down the barrel he really didn't have much of a choice but to defend himself.

Hypothetically, though, if the officer was in the wrong in his attempt to handcuff and disarm this man would the officer still have the right to defend himself? I ask this because if someone commits a crime with while they have a gun I don't think they can claim self defense if they shoot someone else trying to defend themselves from them, right? I don't want to argue the validity of the shooting itself because once the homeowner pulled his gun out and pointed it at the officer someone was going to get shot. I'm concerned with the officer's legal ability to disarm the victim in this or an incident like this. If there is a legal basis for that disarmament then the guy died because of his own ignorance and stubbornness.

After a short break I think I've figured out what my question is.

If there is no complaint against a person and the person has a legal right to be where they are and are legally allowed to be carrying a gun, does a LEO have the right or authority to disarm them? In this case, I don't think that authority given to an officer due the person having a CHL makes a difference because he was on his own property where he could have been carrying anyway. No one called the police to complain about the man shooting a dog. No one called to complain about him walking around out front with his gun visible. I think this is the problem I'm having with this. I don't know what legal right or authority the officer had in the first place to attempt to disarm or handcuff the man. I understand an officer's desire to be in control of a scene and be the only one with a weapon, but where does that desire fall when compared to another person's rights?

puma guy wrote:

texanjoker wrote:Search warrant released. Deceased was a CHL holder. He should have known better. You can read the entire search warrant at the link below.

http://austin.ynn.com/content/top_stori ... th-officer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Schaefer told the dispatcher he was still armed and had a concealed handgun license. The dispatcher asked him to put away his weapon before police arrived, but Schaefer refused.

Two Austin police officers arrived on scene, inducing John Whitted, a veteran of APD since 2009. When the officers arrived, they again asked Schaefer to put away his weapon which was in a holster on his waist, but he again refused to disarm.

“In an effort to make the scene safe,” the warrant reads, “Officer Whitted attempted to handcuff Schaefer. Schaefer resisted by pulling away and stated, ‘Don’t do that,’ and then reached for and drew his side arm and pointed it at Whitted

I will refrain from making any judgements on who's right or wrong in this incident. I'll let all the facts come to before I do that. I am disturbed by this statement “In an effort to make the scene safe,” the warrant reads, “Officer Whitted attempted to handcuff Schaefer. Schaefer resisted by pulling away and stated, ‘Don’t do that,’ and then reached for and drew his side arm and pointed it at Whitted" If it's true I can only say that's insane. To attempt to handcuff an armed individual has to go against every LE policy and procedure in every jurisdiction of the land.

Someone did something wrong here. One of them or both of them, but I don't know which one. I would be surprised if neither of them did anything wrong, but I suppose anything is possible.

I still don't know what the deceased did that was illegal. And by that, I mean something that would have given the officer the legal ability to attempt to handcuff the guy. Was the dispatcher's advice to leave his gun inside legal notification that he could not carry on his own property? Is the mere presence of a gun that threatening? I don't know about Texas, but I think courts in other states have already said that where it is legally allowed the mere presence of a holstered gun is not reason enough to suspect someone of committing a crime. Or something like that. I know I kind of butchered it up a bit, but hopefully not too bad.

If the officer had no legal basis for attempting to handcuff the guy wouldn't that be considered assault to the level that the guy could defend himself? Maybe not, but I'm not sure.

This could get interesting.

When the officer saw the man had a pistol in his waistband, the officer asked the man to give him the weapon during the interview, Acevedo said. The man refused and when the officer reached for it, the man took out the gun and pointed it at the officer, Acevedo said. The officer then took out his own gun and shot the man, the police chief said.

It doesn't specifically say, but it sounds like he met the officer out in his front yard when the officer arrived. This means he would have been openly carrying on his property. I'm worried about the statement that the officer reached for the guy's gun. Why would he have done that? It doesn't sound like the officer was being threatened before that point.