Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO

[VMI77]

... some people are too tense and should not be cops!

The day they stop being "tense" and on top of their duty they will get killed.

It may be as said above she may be new and just not had much contact with people with CHL's. She may have also had a argument with someone right before stopping you. The police have bad days too.

It may be just me, but because someone hands over a CHL does not mean they are Mr. Good Citizen. The CHL could be suspended. (example: many people drive with suspended drivers license)

At least you were not pulled out of the car, disarmed, and searched for "her protection." It doesn't sound like it was too bad. A plus side no citation.

I guess all the cops that have stopped me wanted to get killed then, since none of them have acted like the one in the op. None of them were "tense." All of them were had situational awareness. And I don't get your logic. And why would someone intending to shoot an officer hand over ID?

Your logic assumes everyone with a CHL is a stand up man/woman. I believe most Officers will take the safer approach (not making excuses for this officer, but I wasn't there)

No, what I'm saying is that there is a "logic" to every encounter, and that police officers, having experienced many contacts with the public, should have a very developed sense of who is likely to be dangerous based on a number of factors, the CHL being one perhaps, but not the most important. Voice cues, physical cues, facial cues, behavior cues, situational cues, all go together to develop a sense of when a situation is potentially threatening, not threatening, or dangerous. If a police officer lacks the ability to read a situation with at least some accuracy and consistency, the danger for themselves and the public is greatly increased. Based on the description of the OP, the officer in question appears not to have developed the ability to read a situation and make a realistic assessment of the danger to herself.

[Charlies.Contingency]

well hopefully people don't gun down cops with a provocation either.

That would be nice if didn't happen, but where was it, hwy87 and loop 410 about A year or so ago there was a Bexar County deputy shot to death while in his cruiser at the stoplight. There's a reason us LEO's are cautious, because just wearing the uniform is enough reason for some people to shoot and kill us, regardless of what kind of person we are behind the badge.

[VMI77]

This thread has taken an interesting turn. Unsnapping or releasing one or two retention devices is not an aggressive act, but does it rise to the level of the threat of deadly force? I see officers rest their hand on the grip of their gun often. Most of the time it is just a place to rest their hand. However, in an instant such as the OP described, that's not the case. There seems to be a fine line here and I'm not sure when or why it is okay for a LEO to cross over it, while I am not.

If the OP reached for his gun and released its retention do you think the LEO would have considered it an act of aggression ?

I don't consider unsnapping or releasing a retention device to be an aggressive act. I consider it a cautious act and I've done it myself in questionable situations.....if I don't need the gun, great, if I do, one less barrier to the draw. I don't think you can equate the two reactions though....I assume the LEO is being cautious and doesn't intend to shoot me, however, what motive would I have as a CHL to unsnap in the face of a LEO other than to signal that I am considering the use of my weapon? I think it would be rightly perceived as an escalation and a threatening move, since you're much less likely to be shot by an officer for no reason than an officer might be shot by a stranger and potential criminal during a traffic stop.

[Charlies.Contingency]

This thread has taken an interesting turn. Unsnapping or releasing one or two retention devices is not an aggressive act, but does it rise to the level of the threat of deadly force? I see officers rest their hand on the grip of their gun often. Most of the time it is just a place to rest their hand. However, in an instant such as the OP described, that's not the case. There seems to be a fine line here and I'm not sure when or why it is okay for a LEO to cross over it, while I am not.

If the OP reached for his gun and released its retention do you think the LEO would have considered it an act of aggression ?

I don't consider unsnapping or releasing a retention device to be an aggressive act. I consider it a cautious act and I've done it myself in questionable situations.....if I don't need the gun, great, if I do, one less barrier to the draw. I don't think you can equate the two reactions though....I assume the LEO is being cautious and doesn't intend to shoot me, however, what motive would I have as a CHL to unsnap in the face of a LEO other than to signal that I am considering the use of my weapon? I think it would be rightly perceived as an escalation and a threatening move, since you're much less likely to be shot by an officer for no reason than an officer might be shot by a stranger and potential criminal during a traffic stop.

Why can't I think of an explanation to that statement like you did, well said.

[Cedar Park Dad]

These are fair points. A lot does depend on nonverbal and voice cues which would be impossible to note unless we are there.

If said in a calm manner, I'm not seeing anything wrong with the verbal part of the exchange.

[mojo84]

Sure. And tone and body language is so subjective and when you are there you can be so positive but can't necessarily say why you know something. I just figure, by the description given, that at worst the cop was a bit overcautious for the OP taste. There doesn't seem to be any real activity that anyone could complain about except she had her hand near or on her gun which may just be how she was trained. Being so new she may still follow all her academy training to the letter. I guess my point being if that is something to complain about then why would people listen when something wrong does happen.

Shouldn't this go both ways? I think when officers see someone they stop acting overly nervous, it brings suspicion and doubt into their minds. When a cop is acting overly nervous, it should be concerning to the person with whom they are dealing. It doesn't appear based on the post, the OP did anything to justify a higher level of alertness or caution than normally would be justified on a traffic stop of a citizen.

Cops should always be alert, attentive, cautious and aware when stopping individuals. Preparing to draw their weapon just because someone hands them their ID's when asked, doesn't seem to warranted.

You're trying to take my statement somewhere it was never meant to go. I was referring to the fact that even using colorful, and a bit hyperbolic, language it's hard to point to anything the officer did that is actually, well, wrong. I wouldn't want to dismiss the OP's concerns because sometimes you have to be there and I wasn't but we are mainly talking about the was she made him "feel" and not what she actually did. For all I know she was real concerned but so what. Her actions were not in and of themselves wrong so now we have people complaining because the cops don't treat CHL's like some sort of police reserves like some on here think they are? Even taking the OP's statement at face value it seems to me there is just so much more to worry about that a cop who dislikes or is concerned about CHLs but doesn't do anything but act cautiously when encountering one.

Like I said, both ways? If action is justified by "feelings" alone, maybe the OP felt threatened by the nervous cop's actions of preparing her weapon to be drawn. If there was any other indicator that the OP may have been a danger in addition to having a chl, I could understand why the cop was so nervous and extra causious. Based on the op, I don't think the level of nervousness was warranted.

[Cedar Park Dad]

To the OP, was the PoPo nervous before mentioning the CHL, or only after?
if only after, that would seem...well naive to me. This is Texas. I'd have a default expectation that there's firearms in the vehicle.

[mojo84]

To the OP, was the PoPo nervous before mentioning the CHL, or only after?
if only after, that would seem...well naive to me. This is Texas. I'd have a default expectation that there's firearms in the vehicle.

I handed her my dl and chl with my left hand while keeping my right hand on the wheel and returned my left hand to the top of the wheel.

She reacted badly ... placed her left hand on her pistol, removed the retention, stepped back behind me, and demanded in a shrill voice "ARE YOU ARMED!" Calmly stated that i was armed. She asked "WHERE IS IT!". Calmly stated on my right hip. Was instructed "not to reach for it", She asked again for the insurance card, calmly told her that the card was in the glove box and asked if she would be ok with me opening the glove box to produce the card ....

Sounds like it was a response to the chl to me.

[Cedar Park Dad]

ok, thanks. That is somewhat disconcerting.

[handog]

well hopefully people don't gun down cops with a provocation either.

Their not getting gunned down any more than the general population. Their homicide rate is just slightly higher. It's a huge assumption that they are being picked off.

[Charlies.Contingency]

well hopefully people don't gun down cops with a provocation either.

Their not getting gunned down any more than civilians. Their homicide rate is just slightly higher. It's a huge assumption that they are being picked off.

So if he was not a cop, you think it would've been the same scenario? I understand there is plenty of shootings, but we all know that there is a huge hate for police by most criminals. We give them something to hate us for, denying them the ability live the way they want to live, wether it be robbing, raping, torturing, stealing, abusing, etc. IMO, there is a much higher chance of a non personal attack agains a LEO then you think. There is more incentive and reason that they would shoot at a LEO than any other type of random person. Be it revenge or whatever, but whatever the ratio is to civilians, it's still there, and it happens, and I don't like it.

[Cedar Park Dad]

You could answer that statistically. How many police officers were murdered in the last 5 years while on the job, then compare overall US murder rates for the last five years. not really seeing what the point is. I'd take it as a given that traffic stops are subject to increased danger for the PoPo. I'm not seeing where "loosening the retention" on the holster is a big deal in that circumstance, given they are out in the open vs. a car. if you wanted to get technical about it, many/most CHLers don't have positive retention mechanisms on their holsters, so they're there already. More importantly you're not in the same position as a police officer, there is no expectation you're going to legally be in a gun battle with police...well ever.

Personally I'd like a better statistical test: the amount of gallons eaten of queso per year by the average person, and the average amount I eat. The results might be very informative.

[mojo84]

The scenario presented is that the officer reacted to the OP's chl the way she did. There are many other scenarios where that reaction would be considered appropriate.

[C-dub]

This thread has taken an interesting turn. Unsnapping or releasing one or two retention devices is not an aggressive act, but does it rise to the level of the threat of deadly force? I see officers rest their hand on the grip of their gun often. Most of the time it is just a place to rest their hand. However, in an instant such as the OP described, that's not the case. There seems to be a fine line here and I'm not sure when or why it is okay for a LEO to cross over it, while I am not.

If the OP reached for his gun and released its retention do you think the LEO would have considered it an act of aggression ?

Getting on a little later tonight.

In order for the OP or anyone's action of releasing retention and reaching for their gun to have the same effect as the officer's, wouldn't it have to be intentionally unconcealed? Otherwise, if retention was released and your hand was on your gun and it remained concealed the officer would never know. The officer doesn't have that ability since their sidearm is out there for all to see.

[nightmare69]

Last fellow CHLer I encountered we talked guns on the side of the road for 20 minutes, let him go with a verbal warning for his speed.