Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO

[talltex]

The scenario presented is that the officer reacted to the OP's chl the way she did. There are many other scenarios where that reaction would be considered appropriate.

That is the essence of the discussion here: WHY should any LEO react so negatively to a law abiding citizen presenting them a CHL in exactly the appropriate manner prescribed by law? Every LEO in Texas KNOWS that it is legal for anyone to be carrying in their vehicle so why would they be shocked and alarmed when someone informs them they are indeed carrying. While ANYONE may legally carry a firearm in their vehicle under the provisions of the MPA, the CHL holders are the ONLY ones required to announce that they may be legally carrying in that situation. The fact that they have a CHL , while not proof of being a "good guy" by any means, at least informs the officer that the citizen is not a felon and has never been charged with a number of other crimes that would preclude them from obtaining the CHL, so it would seem like they should be viewed realistically as presenting the least risk of potential danger out of the overall population. I think the officer in question overreacted and hopefully that negative attitude will improve rapidly with experience.

[Vol Texan]

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 ?

Getting on a little later tonight.

In order for the OP or anyone's action of releasing retention and reaching for their gun to have the same effect as the officer's, wouldn't it have to be intentionally unconcealed? Otherwise, if retention was released and your hand was on your gun and it remained concealed the officer would never know. The officer doesn't have that ability since their sidearm is out there for all to see.

If the CHL holder makes ANY move toward their gun (such as releasing retention) during a traffic stop, then it should (rightfully) be considered by a LEO to be an aggressive maneuver.

If it's aggressive when the CHL holder does it, then it's also aggressive when the LEO does it.

This is particularly true in the situation described in the OP in which the officer went from a "friendly and non confrontational manner" to a situation where the officer "reacted badly ... placed her left hand on her pistol, removed the retention, stepped back behind me, and demanded in a shrill voice "ARE YOU ARMED!" ... (snip) ... She asked "WHERE IS IT!"

This isn't LEO-bashing, rather it's normalizing the behavior so that it is interpreted the same way for both individuals. Justifying the action as different (by any means) is an unfair (and likely biased) assessment.

[EEllis]

Like I said, both ways? If action is justified by "feelings" alone, maybe the OP felt threatened by the nervous cop's actions of preparing her weapon to be drawn. If there was any other indicator that the OP may have been a danger in addition to having a chl, I could understand why the cop was so nervous and extra causious. Based on the op, I don't think the level of nervousness was warranted.

OK he felt threatened. So? The officers actions were objectively ok so what are we complaining about here? I mean I know more about the officer based on her being an employed police officer than I do about some random guy on a chl forum. He can't even say what she did wrong just that he feels bad about how it happened? Sure you can second guess and wonder about anything but come on.

[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 ?

Getting on a little later tonight.

In order for the OP or anyone's action of releasing retention and reaching for their gun to have the same effect as the officer's, wouldn't it have to be intentionally unconcealed? Otherwise, if retention was released and your hand was on your gun and it remained concealed the officer would never know. The officer doesn't have that ability since their sidearm is out there for all to see.[/

If the CHL holder makes ANY move toward their gun (such as releasing retention) during a traffic stop, then it should (rightfully) be considered by a LEO to be an aggressive maneuver.

If it's aggressive when the CHL holder does it, then it's also aggressive when the LEO does it.

This is particularly true in the situation described in the OP in which the officer went from a "friendly and non confrontational manner" to a situation where the officer "reacted badly ... placed her left hand on her pistol, removed the retention, stepped back behind me, and demanded in a shrill voice "ARE YOU ARMED!" ... (snip) ... She asked "WHERE IS IT!"

This isn't LEO-bashing, rather it's normalizing the behavior so that it is interpreted the same way for both individuals. Justifying the action as different (by any means) is an unfair (and likely biased) assessment.

Well put.

[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 ?

Getting on a little later tonight.

In order for the OP or anyone's action of releasing retention and reaching for their gun to have the same effect as the officer's, wouldn't it have to be intentionally unconcealed? Otherwise, if retention was released and your hand was on your gun and it remained concealed the officer would never know. The officer doesn't have that ability since their sidearm is out there for all to see.

If the CHL holder makes ANY move toward their gun (such as releasing retention) during a traffic stop, then it should (rightfully) be considered by a LEO to be an aggressive maneuver.

If it's aggressive when the CHL holder does it, then it's also aggressive when the LEO does it.

This is particularly true in the situation described in the OP in which the officer went from a "friendly and non confrontational manner" to a situation where the officer "reacted badly ... placed her left hand on her pistol, removed the retention, stepped back behind me, and demanded in a shrill voice "ARE YOU ARMED!" ... (snip) ... She asked "WHERE IS IT!"

This isn't LEO-bashing, rather it's normalizing the behavior so that it is interpreted the same way for both individuals. Justifying the action as different (by any means) is an unfair (and likely biased) assessment.

Well put.

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.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Like I said, both ways? If action is justified by "feelings" alone, maybe the OP felt threatened by the nervous cop's actions of preparing her weapon to be drawn. If there was any other indicator that the OP may have been a danger in addition to having a chl, I could understand why the cop was so nervous and extra causious. Based on the op, I don't think the level of nervousness was warranted.

OK he felt threatened. So?

Why is that ok?

[Charlies.Contingency]

Like I said, both ways? If action is justified by "feelings" alone, maybe the OP felt threatened by the nervous cop's actions of preparing her weapon to be drawn. If there was any other indicator that the OP may have been a danger in addition to having a chl, I could understand why the cop was so nervous and extra causious. Based on the op, I don't think the level of nervousness was warranted.

OK he felt threatened. So?

Why is that ok?

It's not okay, but there isn't much he can do other than complain. (Not saying he's whining, I'm glad he shared his encounter with us.)Because it's an opinion of the OP that he "felt" something, and that the officer was within her rights. However, I feel confident in saying that we ALL AGREE that the officer's "behavior" according to the OP was not warranted, and it was the way the officer behaved that made the OP "feel threatened." That is not good, but some people have gone to arguing that the officers "actions" were not within her rights, aside from her reportedly terrible approach to the situation and her "behavior."

[mojo84]

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 ?

Getting on a little later tonight.

In order for the OP or anyone's action of releasing retention and reaching for their gun to have the same effect as the officer's, wouldn't it have to be intentionally unconcealed? Otherwise, if retention was released and your hand was on your gun and it remained concealed the officer would never know. The officer doesn't have that ability since their sidearm is out there for all to see.

If the CHL holder makes ANY move toward their gun (such as releasing retention) during a traffic stop, then it should (rightfully) be considered by a LEO to be an aggressive maneuver.

If it's aggressive when the CHL holder does it, then it's also aggressive when the LEO does it.

This is particularly true in the situation described in the OP in which the officer went from a "friendly and non confrontational manner" to a situation where the officer "reacted badly ... placed her left hand on her pistol, removed the retention, stepped back behind me, and demanded in a shrill voice "ARE YOU ARMED!" ... (snip) ... She asked "WHERE IS IT!"

This isn't LEO-bashing, rather it's normalizing the behavior so that it is interpreted the same way for both individuals. Justifying the action as different (by any means) is an unfair (and likely biased) assessment.

Well put.

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 don't think I, nor anyone else, is saying it's ok to mess with your gun, dig in your pockets or shoot a cop because the cop makes someone feel uncomfortable.

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.

[Charlies.Contingency]

I don't think I, nor anyone else, is saying it's ok to mess with your gun, dig in your pockets or shoot a cop because the cop makes someone feel uncomfortable.

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.

(Note: "Ya'll was not referring to EVERYBODY, just those that did believe such. I noticed it was a little too open of word use for my intended purpose.)

Mojo, I have agreed with your neutral party statements, I hope I didn't make it seem like I've painted you as a target. If anything, your statements have been in good line with mine, or at least I see it that way.

Thanks mojo, but I keep getting the feeling that some of the responders to the post have been trying to say that what an officer does is perceivably the same as a anybody else. I just want to get the point across that IMO, 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. If we do the same at a traffic stop, it can be perceived as a threat. There's no question about it, and it flusters me that anybody wants to challenge that. There's a reason it's written into law, to protect officers from being killed, and the defendant saying they did it because they "felt threatened," and then the line between murder and self defense would be based on testimony! He said said she said, I hope I'm not the only one that see's it that way.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Like I said, both ways? If action is justified by "feelings" alone, maybe the OP felt threatened by the nervous cop's actions of preparing her weapon to be drawn. If there was any other indicator that the OP may have been a danger in addition to having a chl, I could understand why the cop was so nervous and extra causious. Based on the op, I don't think the level of nervousness was warranted.

OK he felt threatened. So?

Why is that ok?

It's not okay, but there isn't much he can do other than complain. (Not saying he's whining, I'm glad he shared his encounter with us.)Because it's an opinion of the OP that he "felt" something, and that the officer was within her rights. However, I feel confident in saying that we ALL AGREE that the officer's "behavior" according to the OP was not warranted, and it was the way the officer behaved that made the OP "feel threatened." That is not good, but some people have gone to arguing that the officers "actions" were not within her rights, aside from her reportedly terrible approach to the situation and her "behavior."

I meant more, why is it ok that a citizen has to feel threatened for no good reason? I take issue more with that philosophical view than with the cop's actions in the OP. I'm not threatened if an officer walks up with his hand on his sidearm-I doubt I'd even be able to see it, but I understand being wary. I am concerned with the view though, that citizens feeling threatened - for no justifiable reason - is ok.

I'll note, again my intereactions with police in the last two decades have been minimal, but at no time did I feel threatened in any manner or that the police were acting in any matter except absolute professionalism.

[Charlies.Contingency]

I meant more, why is it ok that a citizen has to feel threatened for no good reason? I take issue more with that philosophical view than with the cop's actions in the OP. I'm not threatened if an officer walks up with his hand on his sidearm-I doubt I'd even be able to see it, but I understand being wary. I am concerned with the view though, that citizens feeling threatened - for no justifiable reason - is ok.

I'll note, again my intereactions with police in the last two decades have been minimal, but at no time did I feel threatened in any manner or that the police were acting in any matter except absolute professionalism.

I believe that I either across very rash, or didn't give my point correctly.

IT IS NOT "OK"

But she did not doing anything wrong except her behavior IMO. If what the OP said is true, the officer needs to have whatever issues she had going on, taken care of. N no way do. I agree with how the officer handled the situation as portrayed by the OP, it should've been a much better interaction.

BEHAVIOR = Bad
Physically touching gun = Technically OK
Combined situation = terrible experience

I hope I'm saying this right. What sounds good in my head doesn't always make since when I say or write it.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Yea I hear you on that. Agreed on all points.

[Charlies.Contingency]

Yea I hear you on that. Agreed on all points.

Thanks, I just hope this ends the subject now. I never intended to get into a three day posting war over it. The fighting is done, now it's time for a pint!

[talltex]

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.

[EEllis]

I meant more, why is it ok that a citizen has to feel threatened for no good reason? I take issue more with that philosophical view than with the cop's actions in the OP. I'm not threatened if an officer walks up with his hand on his sidearm-I doubt I'd even be able to see it, but I understand being wary. I am concerned with the view though, that citizens feeling threatened - for no justifiable reason - is ok.

I'll note, again my intereactions with police in the last two decades have been minimal, but at no time did I feel threatened in any manner or that the police were acting in any matter except absolute professionalism.

And if I wouldn't of felt threatened? What if the op is just paranoid about cops or upset that the cop didn't view him as a "good guy". The part that is the problem is there were no actions reported that were inappropriate by the officer in the op post. Just some negative adjectives and his interpretation of what the officer must be thinking. t's not OK that citizens feel threatened for no reason. It's if there was good reason to feel threatened by the actions of the officer.