TexasCHLforum.com

Here in Arlington Tx, we have a community program aimed at preventing and reporting crime that is set up by the Arlington PD. This program is called C.O.P. or Citizens On Patrol. The basic function of the program is that citizens that have enrolled in the program (with background check) do routine patrols in their watch areas and report suspicious activity and any criminal activity in progress with the pretense that the police department will pay closer attention to calls coming from members of this organization.
These patrols are coordinated with a neighborhood leader. This program was made aware to my wife and I during the national night out 8-07-07 program at a block function in our neighborhood.
My questions are:
1) how many other locales have a similar organization?
2) how many CHL holders participate in community organizations like this one?
Thanks for your input in advance.

I don't know what the CHL participation level might be. But I think if you ask them the police will say that they do not want people to be carrying guns when they do these patrols.

The one big exception might be Sheriff Joe Arpiao in Maricopa County, AZ. (This is basically the Phoenix metro area. He has gone so far as to deputize members of a volunteer citizen's patrol that he set up, and he wants them to carry guns.

Reminds me of the immediate post-9/11 time frame when they were talking about citizen's patrols to safeguard the nation's infrastructure . . . guarding things like dams, power lines, etc.

They actually set up meetings to discuss it in some places, and potential citizen "volunteers" showed up for an "informational" or "exploratory" meeting.

At some point, a guy stood up and asked if they were going to be issued weapons, or, if they were expected to bring their own.

The LEO hosting this supposedly puffed himself up and stated that NO weapons would be carried - no way, no how. Only radios.

The guy who asked the question told him he didn't want guards, he wanted canaries in a coal mine - and walked out.

Followed by almost all the other potential volunteers.

I guess similar scenes were repeated many times, which is why the entire idea died a quiet death.

Speaking for myself . . . I have a CHL, and I wouldn't even consider participation in a Citizens On Patrol program without carrying my sidearm . . . but I would NOT involve myself in anything suspicious that I witnessed other than calling it in; I am NOT a cop, and I am NOT going to play at being a cop. (Which means I'd think long and hard before even joining such a program.)

whoa! canaries in a coal mine

I would think that having a CHL in these situations would be discrete and not a matter up for discussion within those organizations.
Don't ask don't tell is a pretty good policy.

Liberty wrote:I would think that having a CHL in these situations would be discrete and not a matter up for discussion within those organizations.
Don't ask don't tell is a pretty good policy.

Sure, you could do that.

But that pretty much concedes that they don't want you to be armed while on "patrol".

Ever since the Guardian Angels were started (around 1980), certain police officials and professional fussbudgets have been complaining about "citizens taking the law into their own hands." They certainly don't want armed citizens on patrol, and I would be surprised if people in authority didn't tell neighborhood watch and other groups explicitly not to carry weapons.

<rant>Some government officials and many in the press have the mentality that police officers are the "new centurions," and non-LEO citizens should just keep their eyes straight ahead and mind their their own business. This attitude emerges most strongly when someone is prosecuted for self-defense, but also in the incidents where LEOs disarm CHL holders "for everyone's safety.</rant>

There. I feel better now.

- Jim

Liberty wrote:I would think that having a CHL in these situations would be discrete and not a matter up for discussion within those organizations.
Don't ask don't tell is a pretty good policy.

seamusTX wrote:Ever since the Guardian Angels were started (around 1980), certain police officials and professional fussbudgets have been complaining about "citizens taking the law into their own hands."

It has already been said better than I can say it:

Sir Robert Peel wrote:Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

From the COP section of the SAPD web site.

"COP members are to function only as “eyes and ears� for the police, so included in the Do’s & Don’ts are instructions that COP volunteers will not patrol alone, they will not carry weapons of any sort and they will never confront or chase any suspected wrongdoers."

http://www.ci.sat.tx.us/sapd/cop2.asp

If it were me in my own vehicle I would still carry.

seamusTX wrote:Ever since the Guardian Angels were started (around 1980), certain police officials and professional fussbudgets have been complaining about "citizens taking the law into their own hands." They certainly don't want armed citizens on patrol, and I would be surprised if people in authority didn't tell neighborhood watch and other groups explicitly not to carry weapons.

<rant>Some government officials and many in the press have the mentality that police officers are the "new centurions," and non-LEO citizens should just keep their eyes straight ahead and mind their their own business. This attitude emerges most strongly when someone is prosecuted for self-defense, but also in the incidents where LEOs disarm CHL holders "for everyone's safety.</rant>

There. I feel better now.

- Jim

+100 (is there an infinity symbol on here?)

that whole "take the law into their own hands" is a trigger word for me. if the law does not belong in the hands of the citizens in which it was created for then in whose hands does it belong?

rant away man... <lights his Zippo and holds it over his head>

HankB wrote:
The guy who asked the question told him he didn't want guards, he wanted canaries in a coal mine - and walked out.

Those canaries do their job by falling over dead when trouble comes

While I fully support citizens who want to do their part cleaning up their neighborhood, I remember plenty of times when a guardian angel near the Phoenix area where I used to live, would cause more problems than make solutions.

I'd support something like Sheriff Joe's citizen Posse; meaning citizens working in tandem with law enforcement.

Citizens must work with official law enforcement, but law enforcement must also accept citizen help. Citizen help should be accepted as long as those citizens arent breaking the law, endangering police investigations, etc.

If those citizens want to be armed, as long as they do so without violating the law, that should be accepted and encouraged.

What I mean is, I wouldn't want to see citizens thinking they are police officers because they are carrying a gun, or anything.

Rex B wrote:

HankB wrote:
The guy who asked the question told him he didn't want guards, he wanted canaries in a coal mine - and walked out.

Those canaries do their job by falling over dead when trouble comes

Exactly!

They were clearly going to set things up on the presumption that if the (unarmed!) citizens on patrol missed their call-in, something was wrong.

We have a neighborhood watch program in our neighborhood that is totally removed from the citizens on patrol. What we do is watch out for each other , (like getting the mail when a neighbor is on vacation, reminding a neighbor to close the garage door when it is late and they have forgotten, passing out information about any criminal activity in our area, etc.). It has certainly made us better neighbors to each other and has fostered good friendships. Having or not having a CHL is irrelevant.

Robert