Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO

[mojo84]

[VMI77]

Regardless of what's fair or not fair, common sense is in order if you don't want a LEO to shoot you during a traffic stop. I highly doubt there are any cases where a LEO just shoots someone he pulled over for no reason. There may be cases where it's not a particularly good reason, but if you move in such a way that it can be perceived as a threat...reaching into a pocket, reaching under the seat, reaching for the glove box, you're increasing the odds that you might get shot. I don't think the risks are equal..IOW, the LEO's risk of being shot is significantly greater than the risk of an innocent driver being shot by a LEO, so I don't think it's realistic to treat such moves by a driver or passenger in a vehicle as equivalent to the same moves by a LEO standing exposed outside a vehicle.

[mojo84]

Regardless of what's fair or not fair, common sense is in order if you don't want a LEO to shoot you during a traffic stop. I highly doubt there are any cases where a LEO just shoots someone he pulled over for no reason. There may be cases where it's not a particularly good reason, but if you move in such a way that it can be perceived as a threat...reaching into a pocket, reaching under the seat, reaching for the glove box, you're increasing the odds that you might get shot. I don't think the risks are equal..IOW, the LEO's risk of being shot is significantly greater than the risk of an innocent driver being shot by a LEO, so I don't think it's realistic to treat such moves by a driver or passenger in a vehicle as equivalent to the same moves by a LEO standing exposed outside a vehicle.

That's all great and I agree. However, that is not what happened according the original post. I think people are taking it too literal when people say mutual respect and self control for both ways. A cop getting anxious and showing that anxiousness over someone simply having a chl is not the norm nor is it appropriate.

[handog]

Hyperbole aside, what I do think people are saying it is normal and reasonable for a citizen that is being stopped for a mere traffic violation to feel uncomfortable if the cop gets excited and anxious and then prepares their weapon to be drawn just because someone hands them a chl when ID is requested.

It is unreasonable to expect someone not to react or have thoughts based upon the demeanor and actions of another in a similar situation. If a citizen being stopped it is acting nervous and evasive, the officer will pick up on that and respond accordingly. If the cop is acting nervous and excited, think Barney Fife, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the citizen to view that as an unpleasant encounter. Hence the title of this thread.

I just want to get the point across that an officer is not being "aggressive," they are not trying to "scare and intimidate" you, nor are they committing any crime or doing wrong by touching their gun.

Once more...You state as fact, your opinion. You cannot know someone else's thoughts or motives. In this case, in my opinion, it was due to lack of experience, but given the sequence of events, I think she overreacted. I also believe that it isn't always unintentional...there are some officers that do act overtly aggressive and do so with the intention of intimidating others and abuse their authority. I saw it happen a number of times on routine stops, with two officers I worked with back in the mid 70's.

You broke the blue code of silence

[Charlies.Contingency]

Hyperbole aside, what I do think people are saying it is normal and reasonable for a citizen that is being stopped for a mere traffic violation to feel uncomfortable if the cop gets excited and anxious and then prepares their weapon to be drawn just because someone hands them a chl when ID is requested.

It is unreasonable to expect someone not to react or have thoughts based upon the demeanor and actions of another in a similar situation. If a citizen being stopped it is acting nervous and evasive, the officer will pick up on that and respond accordingly. If the cop is acting nervous and excited, think Barney Fife, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the citizen to view that as an unpleasant encounter. Hence the title of this thread.

I just want to get the point across that an officer is not being "aggressive," they are not trying to "scare and intimidate" you, nor are they committing any crime or doing wrong by touching their gun.

Once more...You state as fact, your opinion. You cannot know someone else's thoughts or motives. In this case, in my opinion, it was due to lack of experience, but given the sequence of events, I think she overreacted. I also believe that it isn't always unintentional...there are some officers that do act overtly aggressive and do so with the intention of intimidating others and abuse their authority. I saw it happen a number of times on routine stops, with two officers I worked with back in the mid 70's.

I know, for a fact, that you ignored my point. I apologize for forgetting to put thee letters into it "IMO", we know this all opinionated, stop nitpicking. Everybody should have gotten what has all been said, this part of the conversation is dead.

[Wolverine]

That's all great and I agree. However, that is not what happened according the original post. I think people are taking it too literal when people say mutual respect and self control for both ways. A cop getting anxious and showing that anxiousness over someone simply having a chl is not the norm nor is it appropriate.

Not only is it profiling, but it's profiling without any statistical basis for their prejudice.

[nightmare69]

If I was the OP, I would call and talk to a supervisor about the encounter. I'm sure the brass would speak to the officer on how to handle a future encounter with a CHL holder. Personally, I feel at ease when someone hands me their CHL, I know they are law abiding citizens not looking to shoot me on the side of the road.

[srothstein]

Not well put. I know everybody would like to think everything get to be perfectly "fair", it isn't. The law is not written giving you the same amount of rights as an officer, or to make either actions mean the same. The officer can do things you can't in a flip flopped point of view.

Can you start digging around in your pocket just because the officer did? Is it unfair that it 's seen as a possible threat to the officer, but not to you? It seems like ya'll WANT to think you have a defense to prosecution if you pull your gun on an officer , or because you shoot an officer, because you "FELT" threatened by the officers actions. The law clearly defines the use of force you may use against an officer.

I strongly disagree Charles. I believe it was fairly well put. The act is either aggressive or it isn't and which side unsnaps does not make a difference in whether or not it is an aggressive act. It might, possibly, make a difference in if the aggression is justified or not, but that is a different question.

And I would love for you to show me where any law gives more rights to the police officer to take action without legal justification than it does to the citizen. As a matter of fact, the law even specifies that a citizen may use force to defend himself from unlawful force used by an officer. You and I may have been trained to tell people to keep their hands in sight, but I sincerely doubt you can find a law backing up that training. I can start digging around in my pockets anytime I want, as can the officer. I can unsnap my holster and be prepared when the officer pulls me over if I so desire, just as the officer can. And, I am fairly confident that I can find a lot more shootings of citizens by police that were ruled unjustified than I can of police officers by CHLs, making the officer's actions even less justified based on the story as told by the OP.

Ask the officers and former officers on the board how many would unsnap when pulling a car over? I have lost track of the number of times I did that. Now ask how many would unsnap after pulling the car over when they found the driver had a CHL? I never did and I doubt any of the officers on this board did either (while admitting that this is a biased sample). I think the aggressive act was simply unjustified and unjustifiable.

And I do agree with C-Dub that this has been an interesting turn, and I want to add another twist back towards the original discussion. I may have missed something but I think we all jumped to the conclusion that it was a new officer. I find no reason to truly believe this. We may be deluding ourselves, but there are a lot of officers out there who really do not think citizens should be armed and not all of them are rookies. Would it make a difference in our opinions if we knew that the officer simply did not believe in the Second Amendment that as strongly as we do?

[rbwhatever1]

Well put Steve Rothstein.

[handog]

Well put Steve Rothstein.

Outstanding.

[talltex]

Well put Steve Rothstein.

Outstanding.

thank you, Steve.

[gigag04]

Lol at duty holsters with snaps!

[The Annoyed Man]

Lol at duty holsters with snaps!

Are they dating themselves a bit?

[talltex]

Lol at duty holsters with snaps!

Are they dating themselves a bit?

I, for one, would willingly go back to those days in a heartbeat! Give me a Colt or S&W in Bianchi leather with a thumbbreak strap and keep all the Glocks and Kydex...

[mojo84]

Lol at duty holsters with snaps!

Are they dating themselves a bit?

I appreciate the wisdom of from the "dated".

A friend gave me a sack of old holsters he inherited from his father. They all have old school leather straps and snaps.