TexasCHLforum.com

gregthehand:

Returned your PM....simple misunderstanding is all.

gregthehand wrote:I think this is getting off topic Geo. I will send you a PM so we don't hijack the thread away from disarming or not.

That's ok, The original intent of the thread was about how we could be disarmed, not why we could be disarmed.

I was just wanting a general consensus that if you give an officer your CHL as ID that he could then ORDER you out of your vehicle while he removes the firearm from the vehicle without consent from the driver of the vehicle or a warrant from a judge. This started on a motorcycle forum I frequent and a fellow member told of an stop where he showed his ID. The officer ordered him off the bike and then proceeded to go through his tank bag, without consent from the owner or a warrant from a judge, to secure the gun. I expressed that I thought that was an illegal search and an invasion of privacy. I then had an LEO jump on me because it's his right to disarm me.

It appears though that the general consensus on this forum as well is that an LEO can search your vehicle with consent or a warrant and that anything else that is found during this search can be used against you in a future court case.

I don't agree with it, but I don't write the laws.

How understanding are the real LEOs when following a car who won't pull over because the driver is on the phone with 911 verifying he is a real police officer making a traffic stop?

The last thing I would want to do is to relinquish a gun to a fake policeman. The next to the last thing I would want to do is tick off a real policeman who is just doing his job.

KBCraig wrote:I appreciate the risks that police take, but I do get a bit tired of the worn-out cliche of "just trying to survive my shift".

When it comes to dangerous jobs, police officers don't even make the top 10 list. They might get more physical, and even get injured, but they don't get killed on the job nearly as often as people think. Farmers are more than twice as likely as police officers to die on the job.

That is only because police officers continuously train, are vigilant, and are prepared to counter the danger they face daily. Farmers and convenience store clerks, etc... may have higher rates of death per capita, but if they took the same steps that LEO's take to protect themselves they would be much lower on the list. So it's not that police work isn't more dangerous, it's that the other folks are less cautious and prepared.

Odin wrote:

KBCraig wrote:I appreciate the risks that police take, but I do get a bit tired of the worn-out cliche of "just trying to survive my shift".

When it comes to dangerous jobs, police officers don't even make the top 10 list. They might get more physical, and even get injured, but they don't get killed on the job nearly as often as people think. Farmers are more than twice as likely as police officers to die on the job.

That is only because police officers continuously train, are vigilant, and are prepared to counter the danger they face daily. Farmers and convenience store clerks, etc... may have higher rates of death per capita, but if they took the same steps that LEO's take to protect themselves they would be much lower on the list. So it's not that police work isn't more dangerous, it's that the other folks are less cautious and prepared.

Ah, so it's because other professions are stupid, untrained, and ill-prepared. They must deserve it, then.

Don't forget: I am a LEO. Yes, I want to make it home at the end of my shift. I also realize that my risks are much lower than the night clerk at Motel 6, even though (unlike me), the night clerk isn't initiating confrontational situations with those who seek to do him harm. If some thug seeks to do me harm, it's because I've at least intruded on his life in some way, and if I'm more cautious and prepared than cab drivers and convenience store clerks, it's because my job description involves whacking hornet's nests, not knowing which one of them contains live hornets.

KBCraig wrote:

Odin wrote:

KBCraig wrote:I appreciate the risks that police take, but I do get a bit tired of the worn-out cliche of "just trying to survive my shift".

When it comes to dangerous jobs, police officers don't even make the top 10 list. They might get more physical, and even get injured, but they don't get killed on the job nearly as often as people think. Farmers are more than twice as likely as police officers to die on the job.

That is only because police officers continuously train, are vigilant, and are prepared to counter the danger they face daily. Farmers and convenience store clerks, etc... may have higher rates of death per capita, but if they took the same steps that LEO's take to protect themselves they would be much lower on the list. So it's not that police work isn't more dangerous, it's that the other folks are less cautious and prepared.

Ah, so it's because other professions are stupid, untrained, and ill-prepared. They must deserve it, then.

Don't forget: I am a LEO. Yes, I want to make it home at the end of my shift. I also realize that my risks are much lower than the night clerk at Motel 6, even though (unlike me), the night clerk isn't initiating confrontational situations with those who seek to do him harm. If some thug seeks to do me harm, it's because I've at least intruded on his life in some way, and if I'm more cautious and prepared than cab drivers and convenience store clerks, it's because my job description involves whacking hornet's nests, not knowing which one of them contains live hornets.

I think Its rediculous that you find it necessary to insult other professions. Odin did nothing of the sort, he was simply stating that an LEO possess's more training and tools to defend themselves than say, a 7/11 clerk. I also find it funny that you just used the worn out cliche that you are so tired of.

Ladies and gents - this is not only off the original topic, but is now bordering on personal attacks.

Turn it around immediately or the thread will be locked.

KBCraig wrote:

Odin wrote:

KBCraig wrote:I appreciate the risks that police take, but I do get a bit tired of the worn-out cliche of "just trying to survive my shift".

When it comes to dangerous jobs, police officers don't even make the top 10 list. They might get more physical, and even get injured, but they don't get killed on the job nearly as often as people think. Farmers are more than twice as likely as police officers to die on the job.

That is only because police officers continuously train, are vigilant, and are prepared to counter the danger they face daily. Farmers and convenience store clerks, etc... may have higher rates of death per capita, but if they took the same steps that LEO's take to protect themselves they would be much lower on the list. So it's not that police work isn't more dangerous, it's that the other folks are less cautious and prepared.

Ah, so it's because other professions are stupid, untrained, and ill-prepared. They must deserve it, then.

Those are your words, not mine. I simply pointed out the reasons why more police officers aren't killed - because they are more prepared to deal with the violence that they encounter.

I did not mention the reasons why certain professionas encounter violence more than others, which is a different conversation entirely. The fact is that police are much better prepared to deal with the violence that they encounter, making them more likely to survive a violent encounter that would likely kill someone with less prepartion.

If convenience store/motel clerks/etc. consistently trained in detection, evasion and defense, if they wore body armor, if they openly carried an easily accessable weapon, if they had similarly trained and armed backup available via radio, etc. then I would expect their rate of death per capita to fall dramatically. I'm not suggesting that those professions take those steps, only that it would affect their rate of death in the workplace.

Likewise, since police officers do have all of those advantages when dealing with violence their rate of death is much lower that it would be without their training and preparation.

Statistics can be manipulated to support almost any conclusion. Like most subjects, this one isn't as black and white as it may appear, and you have to consider all of the factors involved to get a true comparison of the dangers of various jobs.

Just because police officers might die on the job at a lower rate per capita does not necessarily prove that they face less danger than a job that has a higher per capita death rate.

Arguing that the only true measure of job dangerousness is the per capita death rate is no different than anti-gun groups arguing that guns are rarely used in self defense because armed citizens rarely shoot and kill their attackers. Studies such as the one by Dr Kleck suggest that armed citizens actually use their weapons to defend against crimes many thousands of times more often than the anti-gun lobby would have you believe, but that in most cases the armed citizen never fires a shot. Does that mean that the armed citizen was never in danger, because he didn't kill the source of potential danger?

KBCraig wrote: Don't forget: I am a LEO. Yes, I want to make it home at the end of my shift. I also realize that my risks are much lower than the night clerk at Motel 6, even though (unlike me), the night clerk isn't initiating confrontational situations with those who seek to do him harm.

If your risk of harm is lower than the Motel 6 clerks in your area then you either work in a very low crime area or your Motel 6 is in a very high crime area. You may be less likely to be harmed due to your training and preparation, but I would think that your risk of encountering danger is probably higher than the average motel clerk. Maybe not, I don't know your assignment, but in general this would seem to be the case.

KBCraig wrote: If some thug seeks to do me harm, it's because I've at least intruded on his life in some way, and if I'm more cautious and prepared than cab drivers and convenience store clerks, it's because my job description involves whacking hornet's nests, not knowing which one of them contains live hornets.

I agree, and that is a different subject.

Here’s another way to possibly look at the discussion…

There are two “rights� competing in this case, the right of the CHL to be armed and the right of the LEO to secure his/her safety.

If there were not competing rights, then there would be no issue.

But since there are competing rights, then some methodology needs to be used to determine which right would take priority.

If there is evidence showing CHL’s have shot, or attempted to shoot police officers in statistically significant numbers during traffic stops, then to me that would be justification since I don’t believe there’s data showing the CHL is at appreciable risk from the officer.

But I haven’t been able to find cases to substantiate that scenario. In the absence of reasonable risk to the officer, the rights of a citizen should never be taken away or tampered with. In the case of a tie, the citizens rights should prevail over the agent of the state.

The founding fathers were all about individual rights and the risks of giving authority to a central power. They were very careful to try and limit the powers of the state and their agents (such as LEO).

Arbitrarily erring on the side of the states agent over that of the citizen, when there is no compelling reason, is wrong and counter to the very foundation of our constitution. A decision by an agency to disarm CHL's just because "it's possible they could represent a risk", in other words policy, would fall into this category for me. So would an officer doing the same just because he can.

TX Rancher wrote:Here’s another way to possibly look at the discussion…
If there is evidence showing CHL’s have shot, or attempted to shoot police officers in statistically significant numbers during traffic stops, then to me that would be justification since I don’t believe there’s data showing the CHL is at appreciable risk from the officer.

Just to play devil's advocate what appreciable risk should an officer have to take? 0.01%, 1%, 5% or 10%.

The chances are that statisically, you aren't going to have deadly force used against you today. Does that mean that you shouldn't carry today? No.

I believe that the root cause is that many [most?] police officers are still uncomfortable with "civilians" carrying guns. It's an "us versus them" mentality. This has been discussed many times in this forum.

Someone's tag line on this forum borrowed from Dirty Harry: "I have a firm policy on gun control.......if there's a gun around, I want to control it!" I believe that is how most LEOs feel. As time goes on and more people are getting CHLs the attitude is changing and I think LEOs are getting more comfortable with armed citizens.

AFJailor wrote:I think Its rediculous that you find it necessary to insult other professions. Odin did nothing of the sort, he was simply stating that an LEO possess's more training and tools to defend themselves than say, a 7/11 clerk.

In the interest of turning down the heat on this debate, let me explain that I was not insulting other professions; I was restating in plainer language what I inferred from Odin's statement. I tried to make it clear that I disagreed with that position, but if I failed to adequately communicate that, I apologize. Odin says I misunderstood him too, so I apologize for that as well.

I also find it funny that you just used the worn out cliche that you are so tired of.

I used it to point out that I am just like everyone else, whether they be deep-sea fishermen or CPAs, and that my desire to go home at the end of the day doesn't outweigh theirs, nor does it confer authority outside of what is found in the law.

The "cliche" comes in when it's used to justify taking extra-legal (and sometimes il-legal) measures.

Kevin