Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO

[Charlies.Contingency]

With a little more experience she may learn that it is the people without CHLs are the ones to fear.

After all, we all have their back.

I stand with you. Despite what the other say, I always pay attention to LEO's around me, and I am always ready to assist them if needed. I can't expect that of all CHLers, knowing there are CHL cop haters, but I give respect to earn it. Every CHLer and LEO has my immediate respect.

[talltex]

Reaching for and releasing the retention on the pistol was a hostile act meant to intimidate. Such an action could only be justified if the LEO was in fear for her life or bodily injury. To require a CHL to present his license upon a traffic stop then interpret that as a threat is absurd.

I must say that, IN MY OPINION, you are wrong. Reach for and releasing the retention is not a hostile act "meant to intimidate". An officer has the right to have their hand on their gun when interacting at a traffic stop. Many well trained and seasoned officers have their level three and two retentions undone upon approach, so the only retention keeping them from drawing is the friction element of their holster. I know many officers whom on traffic stops with any amount of suspicion, remove their weapon from its restraints, and move it to where it cannot be seen by the individual as to not raise alarm or suspicion. Heck, watch cops and you'll see i every once in a while too!

I completely agree with you, on the fact that it was odd of the officer to interpret the chl being given as possible hostility. If she returned to her car to run your DL, and a flag popped up that you have a chl, that would be alarming. I generally see chl holders as the good guys/gals without a uniform, unless they give me a reason to see otherwise. They light in which this story was cast, shows an officer acting unprofessionally in the way she postured, reacted, and communicated with the complainant. There's much better ways to handle this, while being polite and curious.


In other words, the green was showing, no harm no foul, but hopefully lessons were leaned. As for the OP, good job, I would've complimented you for your show of respect and doing the right thing.

there...I fixed it for you. Both statements are matters of opinion, not fact, and as such, are subject to interpretation. What the officer has the right to do, or what many well trained and seasoned officers might do, doesn't mean it cannot be viewed by someone else as unecessarily aggressive.

[Charlies.Contingency]

Reaching for and releasing the retention on the pistol was a hostile act meant to intimidate. Such an action could only be justified if the LEO was in fear for her life or bodily injury. To require a CHL to present his license upon a traffic stop then interpret that as a threat is absurd.

I must say that, IN MY OPINION, you are wrong. Reach for and releasing the retention is not a hostile act "meant to intimidate". An officer has the right to have their hand on their gun when interacting at a traffic stop. Many well trained and seasoned officers have their level three and two retentions undone upon approach, so the only retention keeping them from drawing is the friction element of their holster. I know many officers whom on traffic stops with any amount of suspicion, remove their weapon from its restraints, and move it to where it cannot be seen by the individual as to not raise alarm or suspicion. Heck, watch cops and you'll see i every once in a while too!

I completely agree with you, on the fact that it was odd of the officer to interpret the chl being given as possible hostility. If she returned to her car to run your DL, and a flag popped up that you have a chl, that would be alarming. I generally see chl holders as the good guys/gals without a uniform, unless they give me a reason to see otherwise. They light in which this story was cast, shows an officer acting unprofessionally in the way she postured, reacted, and communicated with the complainant. There's much better ways to handle this, while being polite and curious.


In other words, the green was showing, no harm no foul, but hopefully lessons were leaned. As for the OP, good job, I would've complimented you for your show of respect and doing the right thing.

there...I fixed it for you. Both statements are matters of opinion, not fact, and as such, are subject to interpretation. What the officer has the right to do, or what many well trained and seasoned officers might do, doesn't mean it cannot be viewed by someone else as unecessarily aggressive.

Thank you for calling me out. I was very much flustered when I read that first sentence. I must say that the previous poster in whom made the statement in question, issued it as a FACT as well, that reach for their gun IS an agressive act involving a firearm, which could be perceived as deady force. I wanted that to be shut down.

I will edit it for you though, because despite how much it angers me, I should be politically correct.

[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.

[victory]

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.

I think I know the answer but don't want to be accused of bashing.

[handog]

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 ?

[Charlies.Contingency]

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.

I think I know the answer but don't want to be accused of bashing.

IMO, the line is when an officer "draws" their weapon and points it. They have reasonable belief that their safety, or somebody else's is in jeopardy. Unsnapping or release of retention IMO is nothing more than being prepared. Whether or not the officer makes a scene of it, screaming and obviously gripping their gun is a different story. It depends on how the officer is about it. You can discretely be ready to engage, or you make a huge scene and act like a newbie, and that is what make the OP concerned IMO. The behavior of the officer, not the gun. A person scares me more than a gun ever will, because a gun does nothing by itself.

Goodness, I must be rambling, because now I'm lost as to where we were at in this conversation.

[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 ?

Does a CHL holder revealing their gun and touching it considered a threat to an officers safety? What if the officer touches their gun, is it the same? We're comparing apples to oranges.

[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.

[Charlies.Contingency]

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.

No, her actions do not seem warranted. I fully understand instructing the OP to please keep his hands on the wheel and not touch his gun, and moving an occupied hand to the grip in a discrete manner, would be perfectly acceptable. It was the officers behavior that is in question 100%, not the legality or appropriateness of her touching her gun. She would've done it perfect if the OP would've never been able to notice her grip her handgun.

[EEllis]

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.

[handog]

She would've done it perfect if the OP would've never been able to notice her grip her handgun.

I guess it depends on what kind of country you want to live in. Reaching for and unbuckling your gun, which can only suggest I'm preparing to shoot you if necessary during a routine traffic stop is not what I think the founding fathers had in mind. I don't care if it was part of training or "every one does it."

[Charlies.Contingency]

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.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T Glad I'm not alone!

[Charlies.Contingency]

She would've done it perfect if the OP would've never been able to notice her grip her handgun.

I guess it depends on what kind of country you want to live in. Reaching for and unbuckling your gun, which can only suggest I'm preparing to shoot you if necessary during a routine traffic stop is not what I think the founding fathers had in mind. I don't care if it was part of training or "every one does it."

I want to live in a country where our law enforcement doesn't NEED to carry guns to protect themselves, and people don't gun down cops at a traffic stop without provocation.

[Cedar Park Dad]

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