TexasCHLforum.com

Frost wrote:Just another reason why you should never talk to cops or interact with them in any way if at all possible.

They have too much arbitrary power and you never know if they are itching to use it on you.

And they get even more power with things like red-light (s)cameras. Cops better be careful, technology could put them out of a job! And just mail your fine in to the government, thank you very much! No right to confront your accuser, etc.

Seems to me any undefined terms should be interpreted in the widest definition possible in favor of the defendant. "Traveling" means, literally, moving one's person from one location to another. In a moving car? -- Traveling! Walking to Grandma's house? -- Traveling. Sitting in an office chair, scooting if from one room to another? -- traveling!

Of course, I guess they could get you at a stop light, or even after pulling you over... No movement, not traveling!

srothstein -- Very informative postings -- thanks for the detailed information.

I see from your profile you're a Training Coordinator at TABC. I presume that this position involves knowledge of and training others in how Texas law works?

PS -- When was the "Terry" case, and where can more info regarding it be found?

So, then when asked if you've ever been arrested, people should respond 'yes' if they've ever received a traffic ticket? Many job applicants would never get beyond that point. Seems getting arrested is a LOT easier than I thought!

Skiprr wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:What's a "law enforcement type light switch?"

srothstein wrote:The arrest was made when the cop stopped the person from leaving the scene.

Hmmm, In a 'normal' traffic stop, like for issuing a speeding ticket, is that an arrest? I thought you were considered "detained", as you were not allowed to leave (if you do, expect to see an aerial view of your moving vehicle on the Fox News channel), yet you were not under arrest.

If you're arrested, don't they have to tell you "you're under arrest", and Mirandize you?

Now, they COULD do that, put you in the back of the unit, then look up the law, and subsequently release you at the scene, I suppose.

Ah! Now the comment makes more sense -- I agree!

wheelgun1958 wrote:

lrb111 wrote:I think it was DPS that told us the larger "fire extinguisher" size used for crowd control is the one illegal for civilians. As well as the O.C. grenades.

If your not in the military and subject to the UCMJ, you are a civilian. If you recall recently, the Ft Hood reports went to great lengths to differentiate between military police and civilian police.

Relevance?

chabouk wrote:"Law enforcement strength" is a sales slogan, not a legal restriction.

That would have been my 'assumption' too. Apparently the cop, however, believed otherwise.

And the Chief (?) tried to explain that the law wasn't clear, as it said something about it being illegal unless it was in a "small chemical dispensing device" (or words to that effect), and the law didn't define what "small" was.

So, Guys, Beware! Those 55-gallon drums of O.C. you get from Costco could probably get you into TROUBLE!

Crossfire wrote:Cabela's sells the same thing he was carrying. They just call it "bear spray".

Um, what makes you think that's the same thing? It doesn't look the same, and (as near as I can tell) doesn't say "Law Enforcement Strength"?

(There must be a joke here about "Bears hunting bears"!)

Here is a link to the news story: http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/Possessi ... 91582.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Guy was stopped because police thought he had stolen items (a jetski) in the back of his truck. The Items were not stolen. Then they thought he had a siren, but it was just his alarm. Then they found other "stuff" (scanners and such), but still nothing illegal.

Then they ask if he had any weapons. He (apparently) admitted to a can of pepper spray. The officer (to the surprise of his Sgt.) said it was illegal, as it was marked "Law Enforcement Strength".

He was arrested and charged with a 3rd-degree felony. DA agreed to prosecute, but Grand Jury refused to indite. He's out $6200.

Seems to me the police were DETERMINED to find something, anything, to charge him with.

What do 'yall think?