TexasCHLforum.com

suthdj wrote:Remember the GZ trial they used his college text books to determine what he was trained on. If a LEO is trained on CHL laws I can see no excuse for not knowing however if they are not then they should conduct themselves accordingly an not let the ego rule the day.

cb1000rider wrote:

mojo84 wrote: I also don't believe cops appreciate the psychological aspect of cuffing someone, especially a law abiding citizen that hasn't done anything wrong. I've never been cuffed but I can imagine how I would feel if I was and put in the back of a patrol car when I hadn't done anything wrong or anything to warrant it. I can tell you it would not be appreciated and it would raise my ire considerably. Now, if I were acting like an idiot or in a threatening way, cuff me and put me in the car. That's completely different.

I have no issue with being cuffed and stuffed, especially if it's a LEO that is taking the time to make a situation safe while he/she figures out the fine details of the law. The cuffed/stuffed, while inconvenient, and perhaps a bit intimidating, has no long term repercussions. No objection as long as the stop is legal and there is some level of suspicion there.

cb1000rider wrote:I have a big issue with being arrested, especially if the law doesn't support the legal reasons for that arrest. That arrest, even if dropped, is likely to cost quite a bit of money (bail/bond/towing/recovery/legal retainer) and will forever exist on the permanent legal record and may give employers a reason to think twice, IE "have you ever been arrested?"..

srothstein wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:Do you really expect all LEOs to know when 30.06 laws apply and when they don't?

Yep.

cb1000rider wrote:Now take into consideration the average educational requirements for an entry level LEO job... Still expect them to know?

Well, hold on, let me think about it... Yep.

cb1000rider wrote:We know it because we're passionate about it, studied it, and re-studied it.. Yet you still see questions posted, myself included.

We're not tasked with arresting people who violate the law.

Dave2,

I think you might be expecting too much. Remember that where people can carry is not like theft. Theft is something everyone is taught right or wrong on from childhood. Guns are not that way. Cops get some training in the law, but not nearly enough. I would estimate that the average officer gets 40 hours in the academy to cover the whole Penal Code and guns is not a big portion of that time. Their biannual retraining on the changes is probably only 8 hours (state only requires 4) and that covers the Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, Transportation Code, Education Code, and all criminal court case rulings.

So, expecting officers to know the laws in detail is, IMO, asking too much.

srothstein wrote: I find it reasonable to expect them to know the basics and to have a copy of the law with them to look up the right answer. In a case like this, I would expect an officer to know that a 30.06 sign is required but not know who it applies to or where and not necessarily know the exact wording and size requirements. I would not be too upset with an officer who stopped me for violating the law if someone complained about me ignoring the 30.06 sign if he cuffed me and put me in the car as long as he stopped and read the law before we went any further. I do require that any officer should treat me with respect and courtesy, even if he is arresting me, but that is a different subject.

I think my position is a reasonable compromise between freedom and justice and reality. It would be nice if every officer knew the law and all relevant court cases, but that is just not possible. This is not due to the low qualities of the officers, but due to what would be required (lawyers get three years of schooling and then take lots of time to research their cases so imagine what a cop would require). But it is very realistic to expect the officer to know that he is not an expert and to look up the law before going anywhere. Gould's makes a copy of all of the relevant laws for officers that will fit in their briefcase (I know this because I still have my old copies) and even makes a searchable copy that will run on any Windows based laptop installed in the car with them (again, I have my old copies).

Do you think this might be a more reasonable expectation?

cb1000rider wrote:Dave,
I like your standards. Plano PD has pretty high standards for officers and I've had good experiences with them... Plano also has a higher end pay scale and can be more selective about who they hire. I think in my community entry level officers start out in the high 30k-40k range... I'm not saying salary guarantees better performance, but you do get a wider candidate pool to pick from.

If you really expect them to know it and think that they all do, I challenge you to ask one of your local LEOs if you can carry into a city building that has a posted 30.06. Be more specific if you want... I'll bet that you're looking at under 50% getting it right.

cb1000rider wrote:

Dave2 wrote:We're not tasked with arresting people who violate the law.

That's true.. But if there are no or minimal repercussions for making a good "faith" arrest that happens to get dropped by a judge, how much attention do you pay to preventing those scenarios? Especially if it solves the immediate problem at hand.

cb1000rider wrote:Do you really expect all LEOs to know when 30.06 laws apply and when they don't?

cb1000rider wrote:Now take into consideration the average educational requirements for an entry level LEO job... Still expect them to know?

cb1000rider wrote:We know it because we're passionate about it, studied it, and re-studied it.. Yet you still see questions posted, myself included.

cb1000rider wrote:

Dave2 wrote: Don't you have a nearly guaranteed win in court if you get arrested for something the police know isn't illegal? Something about a such-and-such civil rights case? I forget the exact colloquial name for it.

Defense Attorney: Officer, isn't it true that you knew that my client wasn't violating the law?
LEO: Yes, I knew that and arrested him anyway.

The the above playing out in court are? That's the circumstance that has a shot at paying back.

The claim is going to be that they can't possibly know all the nuances of the law

RoyGBiv wrote:

mojo84 wrote:[Not trying to argue here. Just curious how can you be "confident" you'll recoup your costs? I think people are arrested commonly and are not able to recoup their legal expenses, time, loss of pay if that comes into play and emotional toll.

I believe it is very important to make sure things are straight up front in order to avoid such situations. The idea of don't worry, I can beat the rap if I have to take the ride can be costly. I also think many cops are to quick to take the arrest and let the courts and DA's sort it out attitude too far. To me, that's akin to the "shoot'em all and let God sort them out" mentality.

Ok.. so.. I'm not 100% on recouping costs..
But I'm not going to let that stop me from exercising my rights.
I'm as diligent as I can be about checking the status of places I'm planning to go.... Then I go.