TexasCHLforum.com

NTexCopRetired wrote:talltex - I appreciate what you say but it is just another perspective. I was in law enforcement from 1969 until 2003. Creed #2 has always been around in some form. The essence of Creed #1 has always been taught as a matter of survival, formally in the training classes and informally on the street. The attitudes of officers are always about the same. Year 1-3: I want to learn everything, get into everything, do everything. Year 4-10: I know everything, I have done everything, I can stop anything. Year 10-plus: Don't tell me anything, let's handle this with the least amount of paperwork, how long till retirement. It hasn't changed much in all these years. It is the age of the person not the age the person lives in, that makes the difference. We do live in a time where everyone is a reporter and has the means to record and communicate live, on the scene. We hear about things more often and sooner. Yes there are a lot of bad incidents but the ratio of bad incidents to the number of unreported, good incidents is still very low.

I agree with most of what you state. My perspective...as I mentioned...is shaped by the time and place I grew up in and still live in. We had no formal "academy" training run by a particular PD. Just the required certification courses. I didn't even say that the "warrior creed" was bad...just that for some recruits that have the wrong mindset, it can encourage, and in their minds, justify overly aggressive behavior. Most of all my real training was working with older Deputies who showed the new guys the ropes and how things were to be done in our county. That meant it wasn't always by "rule of law" but by the way the Sheriff, the County Judge and the County Commissioners wanted things handled. I was told our primary job was to take care of "our people"...not punish them. That meant that when we stopped Ol' Joe on Saturday night with a few too many, we didn't automatically take him to jail. That was the last resort and only if he became combative or refused to let us help him. We would contact family or close friends to come get him and make sure he didn't have access to get back on the road that night or we would take him home and tell him he could come by the office and pick up his truck the next day. That simply can't be done now days. The reality now is the department could face huge lawsuits if it was shown they had someone impaired in custody and let them go home and it resulted in ANY kind of accident...even Ol' Joe might sue if he stumbled and fell later in his own house and broke his arm.

My objective every time I leave my house is to return safely.

Same objective is held by LTC's.

But I won't put YOUR life in danger to insure that mine is not. I want both of us to 'go home' at the end of the day and no ones rights to be abused in the process. I am sure we agree on that. It doesn't always work out that way, but more often than not it does.

Again, not trying to disparage LEO, for whom I have the highest respect. Just wondering what is happening to cause such a change in the relationship between LEO and citizens. I don't know quite how to describe it, but an 'us against them' kind of thing seems to exist, even if presented in a professional manner.

It was not that way when I was growing up. Maybe its just something required of the job, owing to societal change, I don't know.

I have friends that are LEO and I care for them deeply. My observations and perspective comes from the side of the general public, so I can't fully know the pressures put upon those who serve, I readily concede to that.

I've never been arrested or jailed, have been ticketed exactly 3 times (traffic) in my 46 years of driving and outside of social gatherings have had very little exposure to LE. With but one exception....all of it good and professional. But the 'trust' and unity seems absent. Maybe it has to be...and I am just living too much in the past.

Anyway, I appreciate your input and perspective and Thank You for the difficult job you have done.

Flint.

I began my LE career in 1977 with Harris County S.O. Moved to Lufkin, Tx in 1982. Worked Lufkin PD, Angelina County Attorney and Angelina County S.O. Retired in 2005 as a Lieutenant. Went into I.T. until I went back into LE with The Lufkin City Marshal's Office in 2015. I now have 29yrs 8 mos TCOLE PO service. The changes just during the few years I was out seem enormous. Everyone is more "aggressive" today, both the officers and the citizens. A lot of "officer discretion" has been eliminated by various laws almost to the point of making robots out of our officers. Add to that the instant 24 hour news feeds and it makes for a very volatile environment. I no longer work patrol but we do serve warrants and do follow up investigations for our municipal court as well as provide court security. I am glad we still have young men and women willing to take on the challenge of law enforcement for without them, we would indeed be in trouble. I look for a push in the not to distant future to Federalize all Law Enforcement. When that day happens, we will truly be a diminished society.

jb2012 wrote:Just curious, is there a reason that some of y'all do not have all necessary documents (DL, LTC, and Insurance) ready to go when the officer arrives at your window? Not calling anyone out, just curious.

Next time you are around an offcier ask him (her) thier thoughts on observing "furtive movements" in the car as they approach or observe from thier cruise.

I think that conversation will do more to explain it than anything we may say here....
End of the day, do what you think is best.. Based on my personal experiences of interactions with law enforcement since conceal carrying ( many, many years ago in another state, then another state, than another state, then Texas) My feeling is... Lights on, window down if possible, hands in plain view and no movement until the offcier has directed it, or been so informed I would be moving. Is all that required by law? NOPE, but as I tell my students ... you can be right...and Dead.

Smokey613 wrote:I began my LE career in 1977 with Harris County S.O. Moved to Lufkin, Tx in 1982. Worked Lufkin PD, Angelina County Attorney and Angelina County S.O. Retired in 2005 as a Lieutenant. Went into I.T. until I went back into LE with The Lufkin City Marshal's Office in 2015. I now have 29yrs 8 mos TCOLE PO service. The changes just during the few years I was out seem enormous. Everyone is more "aggressive" today, both the officers and the citizens. A lot of "officer discretion" has been eliminated by various laws almost to the point of making robots out of our officers. Add to that the instant 24 hour news feeds and it makes for a very volatile environment. I no longer work patrol but we do serve warrants and do follow up investigations for our municipal court as well as provide court security. I am glad we still have young men and women willing to take on the challenge of law enforcement for without them, we would indeed be in trouble. I look for a push in the not to distant future to Federalize all Law Enforcement. When that day happens, we will truly be a diminished society.

You've been doing your diligent work right in my neck of the woods then. Thank You and good job!

I don't belive the police should have been allowed to confiscate the store security videos. They are notorious for not releasing video to the public for a prolonged time, they also should not be policing themselves.

So who is Alton Sterling? For starters, he possessed an illegal firearm. As a felon with a lengthy rap sheet, he was legally prohibited from possessing a firearm. Police records show Sterling had been a member of the Bloods gang, and had a list of offenses including battery, assault, drugs and weapons charges, and owed $25,000 in child support. He was also a registered pedophile, having impregnated a 14-year-old girl when he was 20. The media, by contrast, has portrayed him as a loving father of five.

Bitter Clinger wrote:So who is Alton Sterling? For starters, he possessed an illegal firearm. As a felon with a lengthy rap sheet, he was legally prohibited from possessing a firearm. Police records show Sterling had been a member of the Bloods gang, and had a list of offenses including battery, assault, drugs and weapons charges, and owed $25,000 in child support. He was also a registered pedophile, having impregnated a 14-year-old girl when he was 20. The media, by contrast, has portrayed him as a loving father of five.

I think that is a bit of victim blaming at this point.. Unless the officer knew in advance he was contacting a gang member, he had a firearm, was a convicted felon... then none of that matters as it relates to good shoot/ bad shoot.

E.Marquez wrote:I think that is a bit of victim blaming at this point.. Unless the officer knew in advance he was contacting a gang member, he had a firearm, was a convicted felon... then none of that matters as it relates to good shoot/ bad shoot.

Perhaps. But it does go to the "victim's" state of mind and probability of his resisting arrest (which he had done repeatedly).

E.Marquez wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote:So who is Alton Sterling? For starters, he possessed an illegal firearm. As a felon with a lengthy rap sheet, he was legally prohibited from possessing a firearm. Police records show Sterling had been a member of the Bloods gang, and had a list of offenses including battery, assault, drugs and weapons charges, and owed $25,000 in child support. He was also a registered pedophile, having impregnated a 14-year-old girl when he was 20. The media, by contrast, has portrayed him as a loving father of five.

I think that is a bit of victim blaming at this point.. Unless the officer knew in advance he was contacting a gang member, he had a firearm, was a convicted felon... then none of that matters as it relates to good shoot/ bad shoot.

Seriously? He was no victim! He was a gang banging thug, a convicted felon carrying an illegal weapon and who the police were investigating as he had been brandishing that weapon in a threatening manner prior. He refused to comply with police instructions. Wanna bet a case of ammo on the toxicology report?

E.Marquez wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote:So who is Alton Sterling? For starters, he possessed an illegal firearm. As a felon with a lengthy rap sheet, he was legally prohibited from possessing a firearm. Police records show Sterling had been a member of the Bloods gang, and had a list of offenses including battery, assault, drugs and weapons charges, and owed $25,000 in child support. He was also a registered pedophile, having impregnated a 14-year-old girl when he was 20. The media, by contrast, has portrayed him as a loving father of five.

I think that is a bit of victim blaming at this point.. Unless the officer knew in advance he was contacting a gang member, he had a firearm, was a convicted felon... then none of that matters as it relates to good shoot/ bad shoot.

According to reports he was known for always being at that store and had contact with police previously so they at least knew of him and the 911 call they received was about him with a firearm.

E.Marquez wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote:So who is Alton Sterling? For starters, he possessed an illegal firearm. As a felon with a lengthy rap sheet, he was legally prohibited from possessing a firearm. Police records show Sterling had been a member of the Bloods gang, and had a list of offenses including battery, assault, drugs and weapons charges, and owed $25,000 in child support. He was also a registered pedophile, having impregnated a 14-year-old girl when he was 20. The media, by contrast, has portrayed him as a loving father of five.

I think that is a bit of victim blaming at this point.. Unless the officer knew in advance he was contacting a gang member, he had a firearm, was a convicted felon... then none of that matters as it relates to good shoot/ bad shoot.

Apparently this guy had a loooooooong rap sheet. Do you think that might increase the odds he was known to the officers?

WTR wrote:I don't belive the police should have been allowed to confiscate the store security videos. They are notorious for not releasing video to the public for a prolonged time, they also should not be policing themselves.

The videos are evidence that will be used in an investigation. Who would you suggest be the custodian of that evidence?

Notorious for not releasing video to the public for a prolonged time? That's a big part of today's problems, everyone has the "I want it right now" mindset. They have bigger fish to fry than releasing video for people to make judgements from before all the facts are in. Just my opinion and not a shot at you personally.

E.Marquez wrote: I think that is a bit of victim blaming at this point.. Unless the officer knew in advance he was contacting a gang member, he had a firearm, was a convicted felon... then none of that matters as it relates to good shoot/ bad shoot.

Sorry if this feels like a dog pile E. Marquez, but I don't agree with your thoughts on this one.

The 911 call gave the description of the alleged assault perpetrator and specifically that he had placed a gun in his right front pocket. The 911 operator/dispatcher relayed this info to the units responding. Now, I can't testify if the two police knew Alton by name/sight due to his rap sheet and obvious history of being a productive member of society. However they responded to a legitimate 911 call about a man with a gun assaulting a citizen. They had a detailed description and confronted him.

Alton chose to resist. He chose to continue to resist after being tazed. Alton chose to continue to resist after being taken to the ground. Alton chose to continue to fight after multiple warning from the police to stop or else. Alton chose to think he was going to shoot two cops with that pistol in his pocket, and he was wrong.

Until the legal process has been completed we should at the very least, keep an open mind. History has shown that we cant rely on video, photos & eye witness accounts as these have often been edited to create a false narrative & advance an agenda.

Rush Limbaugh just interviewed Heather Mac Donald whose research has concluded that:

But if we're going to talk about race and policing, let's talk about cop killings. Over the last decade, black males made up 40 percent of all cop killers, even though they're six percent of the population. It turns out, Rush, that a police officer is 18-and-a-half times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is likely to be killed by a police officer.

we have seen a 17 percent increase in homicides last year in the 56 largest cities. An almost unprecedented one-year spike in homicides because officers are backing off of proactive policing, because I hear this from officers across the country, and I was contacted two weeks ago by several Dallas officers who were talking about their reluctance to engage in proactive policing, because when they get out of their cars now, and this is happening across the country, officers in inner-city areas find themselves surrounded by hostile jeering crowds, sticking cell phones right in the officer's face.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/ ... ar_on_cops

The numbers support the cops.