TexasCHLforum.com

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?

I saw this on the news last night, and it did seem the officer was really determined that this guy was gonna be guilty of something. I have always had a problem with the ambiguity of the law on pepper spray, etc as far as what size you could carry. Cabela's sells the same thing he was carrying. They just call it "bear spray".

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"!)

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

A big to the officer and the DA.

What if the guy had been carrying a gun with high cap magazines marked "Law enforcement only" from back in the AWB days? Or had a box of Winchester Ranger ammo marked "for law enforcement use only"? Same thing: the markings are legally meaningless.

Whats the difference between "Police Strength" pepper spray and non-Police Strength pepper spray?
I bought this
http://www.copsplus.com/prodnum3058.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
at GT's in Austin, a "Cop" store that restricts a majority of its selling to the police.

Yeah, this is a case of the cops wanting to get him for something. Unless he had the pepper spray on his, would he "legally" have to admit to any weapons in the car?

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!

Wow. Scary that the DA agreed to move forward with the charge.

But the Grand Jury refused to hand down and indictment.

Probably because they saw through that junk.

sjfcontrol wrote:

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 he persisted in believing so, despite his sergeant's doubts. "It's in the Penal Code somewhere. I don't know where, but I can look it up."

Here's the thing about arresting someone on probable cause that a crime has been committed: unless you can lay your finger on the exact line of the law that has been violated, don't arrest someone. Unless there's some exigent circumstance that endangers the public, refer the matter to the DA.

I'm curious about what prompted the initial stop. There was nothing said about a traffic violation. Hauling a jetski on a utility trailer, even if it "looks suspicious", is not Reasonable Articulable Suspicion for a Terry stop or investigatory stop.

These things really chap my hide. Here was a good guy, breaking no laws, no criminal record, a small business owner, who thought he was doing the right thing by fully cooperating. He wound up in handcuffs and a jail cell, and is out over six grand, and will probably have second thoughts for the rest of his life about police being the "good guys".

The police actions in this case, and others like it, undermine what little public trust is left.

To me, if they had started getting froggy, I would have locked the doors and clammed up. If they had checked all that other stuff, then the driver must have given consent to search.

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.

That story did not bring glory on Wylie PD.

Precisely why you DO NOT SPEAK TO THE POLICE.

Respecting a officers safety in way you are not legally required to do so can land you in JAIL when you've done nothing wrong. Do not give the police ANY ammunition to put you in jail.

Remember: The law is effectively what the police officer and District Attorney say it is, until you pay money to a lawyer to defend against it.

nitrogen wrote:Precisely why you DO NOT SPEAK TO THE POLICE.

Respecting a officers safety in way you are not legally required to do so can land you in JAIL when you've done nothing wrong. Do not give the police ANY ammunition to put you in jail.

Remember: The law is effectively what the police officer and District Attorney say it is, until you pay money to a lawyer to defend against it.

Be polite and respectful, but keep your mouth shut. They are not asking you a bunch of questions because they want to get to know you as a person.

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.