TexasCHLforum.com

nitrogen wrote:This is precicely why you NEVER say "I have a weapon" or "I have a CHL" to the officer, you just give him/her your ID and keep shut.

Still... Out of line, 100%

I'm going to go with Nitrogen here. I do believe there are two issues to discuss here.

To me the first is how to prevent these kind of interactions. He may or may not have been told to stay in the car, he may or may not have been told to get back in. But your first duty, whether it is an encounter with a BG or an LEO is to go home afterwards. I think there is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that remaining where you're at unless you are told otherwise is the most prudent course of action. From the time I was little my dad (a former highway patrolman) drilled into me the manners, attitude and posture to adopt when encountering a LEO.

You can take actions and speak in such a manner as to ease the tensions (not accounting for complete jerks) and if it is a matter of consent and such, you can still refuse while maintaining absolute courtesy. Did the driver do anything wrong? Yes, no, maybe...I dunno, was there things he could have done to possibly avert this confrontation? Yepper.

The second issue I see is, is what do you do when these guys run off the tracks? I would sign a formal complaint and let the IA and DA's offices investigate and prosecute. My decision to file a lawsuit would depend on how swiftly and how cooperatively they responded to my complaint. IF found guilty, these guys should be stripped of their creds and fired.

My opinion, worth every penny you paid for it.

Slamming a citizen who isn't physically resisting into a car because he dared to speak is apparently SOP in Carrollton.

Harassing and threating a possible crime victim to not report the crime is not excusable. No way. Never.

Forget fired. These thugs need to end up in genpop is there's any justice in the justice system.

Texas law allows for punitive damages if I'm not mistaken. That could hurt. Enough to get the city's attention, and the attention of it's general liability carrier. It might be worth an a-whuppin to take them down.

MedicMan218 wrote:He is being charged with "failure to present a chl" to the officer??? Really??? Once he verbalized his possession of a chl he was promptly and forcefully taken down to the groud. When exactly where they eactly expecting him to show proof of licensure when he is being roughed up and donest have free use of his hands?

Not to mention that he was not required to show his CHL, because the officer did not ask him for ID. He just knocked him down.

ScottDLS wrote:

MedicMan218 wrote:He is being charged with "failure to present a chl" to the officer??? Really??? Once he verbalized his possession of a chl he was promptly and forcefully taken down to the groud. When exactly where they eactly expecting him to show proof of licensure when he is being roughed up and donest have free use of his hands?

Not to mention that he was not required to show his CHL, because the officer did not ask him for ID. He just knocked him down.

Careful there Scott. We are still required to show it. It's just that the penalty for not doing so has been removed. Semantics, right, I know. So, when the officer takes your license back to his car to check on you and he finds that you have a CHL he's going to come back and ask you if you are carrying. If you are and you are unable to or for some unknown reason decline to produce your license guess who's getting a not so free ride?

C-dub wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

MedicMan218 wrote:He is being charged with "failure to present a chl" to the officer??? Really??? Once he verbalized his possession of a chl he was promptly and forcefully taken down to the groud. When exactly where they eactly expecting him to show proof of licensure when he is being roughed up and donest have free use of his hands?

Not to mention that he was not required to show his CHL, because the officer did not ask him for ID. He just knocked him down.

Careful there Scott. We are still required to show it. It's just that the penalty for not doing so has been removed. Semantics, right, I know. So, when the officer takes your license back to his car to check on you and he finds that you have a CHL he's going to come back and ask you if you are carrying. If you are and you are unable to or for some unknown reason decline to produce your license guess who's getting a not so free ride?

You are not required to show it just because you happen to be in the vicinity of a police officer or even interacting with him. Was the guy asked for identification and given an opportunity to present it? Apparently not. And even at the time it was not a crime (the first time).

GC §411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE, (a) If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.

This is the same department where less than a year ago several dispatchers and officers were investigated and terminated for retaliation on a community member that regularly called to report a dispute with a neighbor. Those dispatchers and officers decided the best way to serve the community would be to get drunk (off shift) and egg the complaintants house. Vengful, childish, vandalizm! So....I guess the current situation cannot be much of a suprise. A few bad eggs are continuing to give this department a black eye but you have to wonder how this behavior continues to breed in this department. Seems like retaliation and threatening the community is the SOP in Carrollton. My guess would be that this culture has to be acceptable at some level of leadership or it would not continue to exist. I hope this case can help root out the select few determined to discredit the department.

And to think the town's previous claim to fame was Vanilla Ice.

Dragonfighter wrote:To me the first is how to prevent these kind of interactions.

Seems some long dead guy had some good ideas on that:

Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

KD5NRH wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:To me the first is how to prevent these kind of interactions.

Seems some long dead guy had some good ideas on that:

Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Umm, what "long dead guy" was that?

ScottDLS wrote: You are not required to show it just because you happen to be in the vicinity of a police officer or even interacting with him. Was the guy asked for identification and given an opportunity to present it? Apparently not. And even at the time it was not a crime (the first time).

GC §411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE, (a) If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.

I don't know if he was asked for ID or not. Of course, we're not required to show every LEO we come near our CHL just like we don't have to show them anything else when we walk by them. However, this guy yelling out that he has a CHL makes me think he was either asked for ID or he knew they were going to or he thought that would get them to stop. Who knows?

sjfcontrol wrote:Umm, what "long dead guy" was that?

Sir Robert Peel

KD5NRH wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Umm, what "long dead guy" was that?

Sir Robert Peel

Hmmm, from the same place that now wants to outlaw "pointed" knives, and bar glasses. They've come a long way since his time...

sjfcontrol wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Umm, what "long dead guy" was that?

Sir Robert Peel

Hmmm, from the same place that now wants to outlaw "pointed" knives, and bar glasses. They've come a long way since his time...

Sir Robert Peel is recognized as one of the founders of modern policing and from what I understand, many of his concepts are still in use today.

SQLGeek wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Umm, what "long dead guy" was that?

Sir Robert Peel

Hmmm, from the same place that now wants to outlaw "pointed" knives, and bar glasses. They've come a long way since his time...

Sir Robert Peel is recognized as one of the founders of modern policing and from what I understand, many of his concepts are still in use today.

Correct. He had novel ideas such as community oriented policing, and having some measure of professionalism. He had a watch and ward (night and day) shift, and organized things past the angry farmer lynch mob.