Brooks County

[AEA]

Morning quarters at San Diego Boot Camp:

Leading Petty Officer mustering the men.........

"OK men, that's it for the Plan of The Day, but I need a couple of volunteers............."

"Anyone know anything about typewriters?"

Several figured this would be a easy job for the day, sitting around and typing, so quite a few held up their hands.

"OK, you, you and you.......over at Supply is a 18 wheeler loaded with typewriters. I want those unloaded and stored in Supply before lunch!"

[jimlongley]

. . . I volunteered twice in boot camp. That got me 9 weeks sitting behind a desk doing nothing while everyone else was out training and four straight weeks of weekend liberty. Sometimes volunteering can work out well.

I volunteered twice in boot too, once to demonstrate the manual of arms, which earned me participation in "Honor Platoon" and once to stand extra guard duty after being set back two weeks due to the activities of a couple of guys who didn't like that I made Honor Platoon instead of them, which earned me a couple of perks from the new company commander 0and extra time on the rifle range. The perks were unimportant, but the range time was fun.

[srothstein]

Maybe he really does know the law as it currently is and was just trying to keep the OP from carrying a firearm in his motor vehicle.

I certainly hope this is the truth of the matter because I am appalled at his having 24 years and not knowing the law. Since he did mention the MPA, this is a very good possibility.

I am even more appalled, though, that a police officer with 24 years of experience would let someone commit a crime in front of him and not do his job by arresting him. Think about it for a minute. while we all know that he was wrong about the law, what does it say about the way he does his job? He caught a criminal and let him go. Why? Would he do that for a thief, if it was a small amount? What about a burglar?

If the OP wants to complain to the department's chief, I would certainly ask him to look at both sides of this issue. Why does the officer not know the law, when it has been in effect for several years and was mentioned (well, TCLEOSE says it should have been) in training? And, if the officer does think it is illegal, why is he not doing his duty? What else is he doing wrong? It does not say much for the department and its supervision, so maybe I would not expect much from the chief.

[talltex]

Maybe he really does know the law as it currently is and was just trying to keep the OP from carrying a firearm in his motor vehicle.

I certainly hope this is the truth of the matter because I am appalled at his having 24 years and not knowing the law. Since he did mention the MPA, this is a very good possibility.

It looks to me like there's a big problem either way, but I have a bigger problem if that WAS the case...that he was not ignorant of the law. If he was merely ignorant of it, that CAN be addressed by educating him...on the other hand if he is aware of the law and simply chooses to ignore it and threatens or actually does arrest someone for it, that indicates that he feels he is above the law, and I'm not sure you can fix that kind of attitude.

[Abraham]

Speculation: Intimidation.

The officer DOES know the law, but doesn't agree with it - so, he goes about doing what he can to stop the public from carrying...or he would have arrested the man. Of course, since he knows the man is within his rights to carry, he would've gotten into trouble if he arrested the man...

This officer needs to retire or be retired.

[SewTexas]

here's my husband's take on it....

cop takes the gun back to his car...calls it in tells them what's up says he's getting ready to arrest...blah, blah, blah....they tell him "give him his gun back you're getting ready to get us sued, you idiot" and give him a quick education" that's why he came BACK talking about MPA"

it's an interesting thought.

[bci21984]

Do an open records request for the video, obtain copy of said video, then contact officer's superiors and advise them of the contact and the need for said officer to have further training.

[TexasCajun]

On the side of the road, 'Yes sir/ma'am' and 'No sir/ma'am' are perfectly acceptable and complete answers.

If a 24 yr LEO is still doing routine traffic stops that should tell you all you need to know about him. File the complaint for all the good it will do. But on the other hand it could be an interesting excercise jut to see what happens.

[emcee rib]

On the side of the road, 'Yes sir/ma'am' and 'No sir/ma'am' are perfectly acceptable and complete answers.

If a 24 yr LEO is still doing routine traffic stops that should tell you all you need to know about him. File the complaint for all the good it will do. But on the other hand it could be an interesting excercise jut to see what happens.

Especially if a friend works for a news organization and does a FOIA request a few months later.

[Jumping Frog]

File the complaint for all the good it will do.

It may accomplish nothing for the OP.

However, a written complaint also starts paper trail. Someone like this doesn't suddenly decide to stop what they are doing and change their ways. That means they are treating other people this way as well.

Maybe the next guy gets arrested instead of warned because instead of looking like some middle-aged, middle-income suburbanite, the guy is 22 years-old with tattoos. Maybe he spends 2 days in jail over the weekend before getting bailed out on utterly bogus charges.

Now, having the original written complaint really sets the table for the follow-up case. It is on record that both the officer and the commanding officers were notified and corrective action/training should have occurred.

Actually, for all we know, the OP's written complaint could be the 3rd or 4th written complaint and may trigger far more actions than we would have ever dreamed.

When public servants forget they are there to serve the public, documenting problems in writing is really important.