TexasCHLforum.com

NTexCopRetired wrote:A peace officer, in the State of Texas, who is outside his jurisdiction may arrest, without warrant, a person who commits an offense within the officer's presence or view, if the offense is a felony, a violation of Penal Code - Chapter 42 (DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RELATED OFFENSES) or Penal Code - Chapter 49 (INTOXICATION AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE OFFENSES), or a breach of the peace.

What he said.

When I was LEO all off duty jobs had to be pre-approved by our department. The jobs were posted in the briefing room and senior officers had first dibs. The hourly wage was set by the department, the jobs were only within the department's jurisdiction, and the officer(s) had to have a department radio to contact on duty officers for backup, or transport for arrests. We worked school sporting events, dances at the Civic Center, and various other events, occasionally at super markets and fast food chains where there had been issues. The officers were not allowed to work any jobs not pre-approved. And for re-occurring jobs, like basket ball games etc. they had to be re-posted each week so that the same officers were no always working them. We made it clear to those that hired us that we were working as LEO first, were not there to enforce dress codes, or company policies that were only civil matters. We would enforce trespass warnings, and work crowd control at games. And enforce any state laws that were broken.

At the time our county was dry, so the only alcohol offenses were when we worked dances whee people could BYOB. It was good extra money, but It did tend to get old quick.

One thing I forgot no first year officers were allowed to work off duty jobs.

C-dub wrote:My question wasn't about whether he was right or wrong since it is clear that he was wrong. I'm curious about his method of disarmament. Were he not a LEO what he did would clearly be an assault. It would be if someone attempted to disarm a LEO like that and likely result in their death. My question is, due to his ignorance, is he given a free pass on the "assault" because of being a LEO? And at what point does that free pass no longer apply?

I'm still curious about the way he disarmed the OP. Unless I missed it, I don't think anyone has offered up a yay or nay on this. If I did miss it, I do apologize.

C-dub wrote:

C-dub wrote:My question wasn't about whether he was right or wrong since it is clear that he was wrong. I'm curious about his method of disarmament. Were he not a LEO what he did would clearly be an assault. It would be if someone attempted to disarm a LEO like that and likely result in their death. My question is, due to his ignorance, is he given a free pass on the "assault" because of being a LEO? And at what point does that free pass no longer apply?

I'm still curious about the way he disarmed the OP. Unless I missed it, I don't think anyone has offered up a yay or nay on this. If I did miss it, I do apologize.

The off-duty LEO/security guard grabbed the pistol from the OP's holster. I would say that this was an assault, since his contact with the OP was not welcome and he considered it "offensive".

Walked into the store (I have OC'd there before) and I see the Sheriffs deputy who is working the store come from behind the counter and was clearly headed my direction. I was expecting him to come over and ask for my CHL/LTC. He walked up beside me and without saying a word, reached out with both hands and started removing my M&P from it's holster. I moved my arm out of his way, but stated "what are you doing?"

Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

WildBill wrote:

C-dub wrote:

C-dub wrote:My question wasn't about whether he was right or wrong since it is clear that he was wrong. I'm curious about his method of disarmament. Were he not a LEO what he did would clearly be an assault. It would be if someone attempted to disarm a LEO like that and likely result in their death. My question is, due to his ignorance, is he given a free pass on the "assault" because of being a LEO? And at what point does that free pass no longer apply?

I'm still curious about the way he disarmed the OP. Unless I missed it, I don't think anyone has offered up a yay or nay on this. If I did miss it, I do apologize.

The off-duty LEO/security guard grabbed the pistol from the OP's holster.

And I believe there is a clear consensus that this was very wrong and very stupid on the part of the LEO. As to whether the actions may possibly have been criminal, I think that may be a moot point given that the OP does not appear interested in filing a criminal complaint over this incident.

If / when this happens to someone other than the OP, the result might be much worse for all involved. I believe that is why there is such a strong call for a substantive response from the Sheriff.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

C-dub wrote:

C-dub wrote:My question wasn't about whether he was right or wrong since it is clear that he was wrong. I'm curious about his method of disarmament. Were he not a LEO what he did would clearly be an assault. It would be if someone attempted to disarm a LEO like that and likely result in their death. My question is, due to his ignorance, is he given a free pass on the "assault" because of being a LEO? And at what point does that free pass no longer apply?

I'm still curious about the way he disarmed the OP. Unless I missed it, I don't think anyone has offered up a yay or nay on this. If I did miss it, I do apologize.

The off-duty LEO/security guard grabbed the pistol from the OP's holster.

And I believe there is a clear consensus that this was very wrong and very stupid on the part of the LEO. As to whether the actions may possibly have been criminal, I think that may be a moot point given that the OP does not appear interested in filing a criminal complaint over this incident.

If / when this happens to someone other than the OP, the result might be much worse for all involved. I believe that is why there is such a strong call for a substantive response from the Sheriff.

I was responding to C-dub's post. It is the OP's choice whether to pursue an assault charge, which he decided not to do. I agree with the way he is handling the incident.
P.S. I think that it would be a stretch that the DA would file assault charges.

I tend to wonder if the off-duty officer was even legal to disarm. According to GC 411.207, it appears the authority to disarm is only a peace officer acting in the lawful discharge of OFFICIAL DUTIES. I somehow don't think an off-duty "second job" would qualify as official duties.

Sec. 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. (a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual.

txpilot wrote:I tend to wonder if the off-duty officer was even legal to disarm. According to GC 411.207, it appears the authority to disarm is only a peace officer acting in the lawful discharge of OFFICIAL DUTIES. I somehow don't think an off-duty "second job" would qualify as official duties.

Sec. 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. (a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual.

Yeah I think there are a lot of issues regarding this incident that would take a court case to resolve, and only then if the prosecuting attorneys wished to pursue anything. It was/is clear that the Deputy in question was at the very least very misinformed regarding the law on carrying in liquor stores by LTC holders, and was very poorly trained in methods in dealing with the public. I will defer to the OP decisions regarding any further action in this case, but I do hope that the deputy in question receives extensive training before being allowed to work off duty jobs, and/or hits the streets again. As stated by many on here this could have turned out so much worse.

Wow that is hard to believe a cop could be that stupid.

I would have called 911 before I ever left that store because that guy either needs more training and a reprimand or be fired!

OK, my two cents on a tangential issue:

Apparently there are people who think the deputy, having disarmed the OP, should have fiddled around with the gun trying to unload it or "make it safe" or some such. The one thing he did correctly was to not mess with the gun once he had it. Properly handling the gun would be to treat as loaded all the time, regardless of whether one thinks it loaded or not, thus there is not reason to open oneself up to ADs or NDs by doing any more than necessary. Administrative procedures are minefields for launching unwanted rounds (clearing barrels so beloved by certain organizations are famous magnets for NDs).

The OP's having him put it in the holster was an effective trigger guard, much better than someone trying to clear a gun he may well not be familiar with.

The deputy clearly didn't think the OP was much of a threat (which is why he didn't draw down on him or arrest him or run warrants or all that other stuff people want to blame him for not doing), he just wanted to get the gun out of the store. He was wrong on the law, and trying to take it out of the holster without warning was dumber than bricks, but then trying to unload and clear it would have amplified his foolishness.

ELB wrote:OK, my two cents on a tangential issue:

Apparently there are people who think the deputy, having disarmed the OP, should have fiddled around with the gun trying to unload it or "make it safe" or some such. The one thing he did correctly was to not mess with the gun once he had it. Properly handling the gun would be to treat as loaded all the time, regardless of whether one thinks it loaded or not, thus there is not reason to open oneself up to ADs or NDs by doing any more than necessary. Administrative procedures are minefields for launching unwanted rounds (clearing barrels so beloved by certain organizations are famous magnets for NDs).

The OP's having him put it in the holster was an effective trigger guard, much better than someone trying to clear a gun he may well not be familiar with.

The deputy clearly didn't think the OP was much of a threat (which is why he didn't draw down on him or arrest him or run warrants or all that other stuff people want to blame him for not doing), he just wanted to get the gun out of the store. He was wrong on the law, and trying to take it out of the holster without warning was dumber than bricks, but then trying to unload and clear it would have amplified his foolishness.

I agree that the deputy grabbling the OP's gun was stupid. It was also likely criminal. LEO's tend to be above the law so a DA probably wouldn't prosecute even if the OP filed charges, but that doesn't make it any less of a crime. If I did the same thing I likely would be prosecuted.

The LEO then making the gun available to an unknown 3rd party, was also dumb.

I do agree that the deputy should not have tried to clear the weapon, but this should have all been a moot point since he never should have had possession of the gun in the first place.

I didn't read the entire thread, so I apologize ahead of time. Did anyone ask what the officer's position would have been if the OP had rearmed and walked back in? Was the officer authorized to give verbal notice? Has the store since been posted?

Read signs, agree that none apply.
Walk back to car and give loaded lethal firearm to an arguable arbitrary third party.
OP rearms and walks back to the door.
Officer then........? Enforces a sign/statute that they agreed isn't there? Lets the OP shop? Gets a case of ego rage?

I think a well thought out letter to the owner of the store would be more productive. They may want it posted. They definitely want a different officer working the place.