TexasCHLforum.com

casp625 wrote: Yep, and a response with guns drawn was the appropriate answer.

You are asserting a position that I don't hold, didn't state and is not even a logical progression from my statements. Trying to assert control is isn't illegal or immoral when kept to a reasonable level, but it can draw responses from whomever you attempt it with. In this particular case it may have various negative consequences including raising a police officer's suspicion level, irritating the police officer so as to make a negative interaction more likely, make it less likely to receive the benefit of the doubt, And various other things. Now maybe you can rattle a cop by continually interjecting, because I don't think just one question would work on any cop, and might be able to talk your way out of something. Feel free to try. But to pretend there also are not real world negative consequences for actions seems unrealistic.

thenick_ttu wrote:In addition to the driver asking why he was pulled over, it seems as though he was being vague in his answers to the police. The police officer asked him where his gun was. You can't hear the driver's response but I assume it was something along the lines of "on my body" because the officer immediately responded with "where on your body?"

All of these factors together could easily make the officer uncomfortable and result in the response we see.

I don't see on my body as being unspecific. It does narrow it down so they know it is not in the console or glove box. Yes, it could be more specific, but again, that alone doesn't justify escalation/arrest. We'll see I guess.

Officer Schnacky: where on your body?

Gonzalez: my right side

Officer Schnacky: okay

Officer Schnacky: request back up. Suspect is not cooperating.

MechAg94 wrote:

thenick_ttu wrote:In addition to the driver asking why he was pulled over, it seems as though he was being vague in his answers to the police. The police officer asked him where his gun was. You can't hear the driver's response but I assume it was something along the lines of "on my body" because the officer immediately responded with "where on your body?"

All of these factors together could easily make the officer uncomfortable and result in the response we see.

I don't see on my body as being unspecific. It does narrow it down so they know it is not in the console or glove box. Yes, it could be more specific, but again, that alone doesn't justify escalation/arrest. We'll see I guess.

And I didn't get that the guy seemed evasive from what they showed on screen of the conversation, including how long it was between each other's responses.

I can imagine that any answer he would give could be then misconstrued as being unspecific or evasive. If he said, in a holster on his right side, for example...the response might have been to ask if he was wearing it if the officer didn't understand "on my right side" to mean attached to his belt. And so on. I would have assumed that the first answer given was just the first thing that came into his mind when being stopped for as far as he knew, no particular reason. Probably meant to indicate that it wasn't in his glove box, or console, or sitting on the seat, or in the door pocket. And so on.

I guess one could say the officer was being over-cautious, but if everyone goes home unhurt and alive...was it a bad thing? I didn't notice the officer reporting in that the driver was not being cooperative when I first saw it. I do still think the officer over-reacted a little bit... BUT with all the officers being shot these days...guess I can't blame him too much. I still think there's something we have not seen or heard.
Maybe it was an attitude adjustment.

Countryside wrote:I guess one could say the officer was being over-cautious, but if everyone goes home unhurt and alive...was it a bad thing? I didn't notice the officer reporting in that the driver was not being cooperative when I first saw it. I do still think the officer over-reacted a little bit... BUT with all the officers being shot these days...guess I can't blame him too much. I still think there's something we have not seen or heard.
Maybe it was an attitude adjustment.

But that would seem to imply that despite having been presented a CHL, carried by someone statistically less likely to commit a crime than a LEO (if I recall those stats correctly), the default was to feel officer safety threatened so much so that over a minor traffic stop it was necessary to cuff the guy? So if that's how they treat those statistically least likely to be criminal and by extension least likely to be a threat....I can't help but wonder how anyone else gets treated. I agree that officer safety was on his mind -- in case you didn't notice it the officer ran his hand up the side of the vehicle (leaving some DNA proof of the stop behind), but to me I'd have thought that upon seeing a CHL that the first reaction would be oh, here's a guy who has cleared a criminal background check, fingerprints on file, had training on lawful carry in a vehicle, and so on.

Glockster wrote:

Countryside wrote:I guess one could say the officer was being over-cautious, but if everyone goes home unhurt and alive...was it a bad thing? I didn't notice the officer reporting in that the driver was not being cooperative when I first saw it. I do still think the officer over-reacted a little bit... BUT with all the officers being shot these days...guess I can't blame him too much. I still think there's something we have not seen or heard.
Maybe it was an attitude adjustment.

But that would seem to imply that despite having been presented a CHL, carried by someone statistically less likely to commit a crime than a LEO (if I recall those stats correctly), the default was to feel officer safety threatened so much so that over a minor traffic stop it was necessary to cuff the guy? So if that's how they treat those statistically least likely to be criminal and by extension least likely to be a threat....I can't help but wonder how anyone else gets treated. I agree that officer safety was on his mind -- in case you didn't notice it the officer ran his hand up the side of the vehicle (leaving some DNA proof of the stop behind), but to me I'd have thought that upon seeing a CHL that the first reaction would be oh, here's a guy who has cleared a criminal background check, fingerprints on file, had training on lawful carry in a vehicle, and so on.

I don't disagree. All in all it a was rather odd event. It may be a combination of factors we'll never know about. Things could have been done better on both sides.

loktite wrote:
Again, this is my opinion.. but the general order of a traffic stop will come to the officer telling you why you were pulled over. It's almost similar to interrupting. To ask at that point came off as impatient/rude.

Is being rude, impatient, and interrupting punishable by arrest in this country now?


Seems to me the cops need to learn a little patience themselves.

I've read stories about this incident and the subsequent arrest. It appears that he was arrested for an outstanding warrant regarding failure to pay traffic citations.

This may be be why he was being vague with his answers.

Until I know more I will reserve judgement, however not every one is doing the same. One particular group led by a particular individual has already scheduled a rally to "educate" the department.

I've read all the speculation (and that's all it is until we see an entire video), but when an officer asks me if I have my weapon on me, I'm going to respond, "Yes sir. I have a loaded P238 with one in the chamber in a belt holster at 3 o'clock. I'm not going to say, It's on my body. That could be anywhere, and it comes across as evasive. On my body could be anywhere from inside my shirt to behind my back to between my legs, to on my ankle to at my belt line. Why would you want to be evasive with a cop regarding the location of your firearm?

cprems wrote:I've read stories about this incident and the subsequent arrest. It appears that he was arrested for an outstanding warrant regarding failure to pay traffic citations.

This may be be why he was being vague with his answers.

That then might well explain a lot of this.

baldeagle wrote:I've read all the speculation (and that's all it is until we see an entire video), but when an officer asks me if I have my weapon on me, I'm going to respond, "Yes sir. I have a loaded P238 with one in the chamber in a belt holster at 3 o'clock. I'm not going to say, It's on my body. That could be anywhere, and it comes across as evasive. On my body could be anywhere from inside my shirt to behind my back to between my legs, to on my ankle to at my belt line. Why would you want to be evasive with a cop regarding the location of your firearm?

I do get your point...but, from my perspective which comes from someone who has never been stopped much less gotten a ticket, I would assume that IF the officer wants all that detail, he/she will ask. I'd be thinking, wow, wonder why I was stopped. Then would be thinking about handing over my ID. And then when asked, could easily imagine giving the shortest answer I could, to not complicate things or overload the officer who is thinking about my having a weapon. And I wouldn't be thinking, hey I'll play evasive by saying it's on my body. I'd be thinking that I'm required to provide my CHL with my DL. No requirement exists to give out details of how I'm armed. I'd wait to be asked, or would assume the officer doesn't want/need to know (else the law would require me to provide all of that). It would be about being brief, trying to make sure that I didn't say something to really trigger the officer. I'm just saying that there are two sides to every interaction and communication.

According to KPRC Channel 2 website published Thursday, the officer involved resigned and is no longer with the department. It does not say the reason he resigned.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/rosen ... t/36554590

Any time I've been pulled over I already had my drivers license and insurance card out and I've been pleasant to the officer. Attitude means a lot in these situations. With a CHL I'll have that out too if I get pulled over even if I am not carrying. Other than a polite greeting, I wait and let the officer tell me why he stopped me.

I agree that there is more to the story than what is presented in the video. One thing I noticed in the video, is that Mr. Gonzalez seemed to not obey the instruction to exit and have his hands on his head. He was facing the officer and seemed confrontational in a way. Maybe the officers didn't handle things 100% right, but I'd guess that Mr. Gonzalez was the cause.