TexasCHLforum.com

bwahahaha wrote:

srothstein wrote: Well, from the point of view of a long time experienced Texas officer, I would have to say that you have some valid points and a somewhat jaundiced view also.

I do have a cynical view of DPS and sometimes let that get the best of me. Today was one of those days. I am not a fan of DPS, and was very disappointed to read OP's account of a particular Trooper's conduct during his traffic stop. That said, I appreciated reading your post and the other posts in this thread -- part of the reason for being here is to learn from everyone else and I definitely figured some things out today

Steve is the epitome of a "peace officer". He's also quite a gentleman in how he expresses his opinions. (The two go hand-in-hand, I believe.)

FWIW, I understood your reaction. I am also angered when LEOs routinely disarm CHLs outside their statutory authority. That's something we need to address by TSRA talking directly to Col. Booth, or talking indirectly through the Legislature. Personally, I'd prefer to just work things out with DPS. The law is already clear enough, and it allows for officer safety. "We disarm everyone" doesn't meet the statutory requirements.

KBCraig wrote:

bwahahaha wrote:

srothstein wrote: Well, from the point of view of a long time experienced Texas officer, I would have to say that you have some valid points and a somewhat jaundiced view also.

I do have a cynical view of DPS and sometimes let that get the best of me. Today was one of those days. I am not a fan of DPS, and was very disappointed to read OP's account of a particular Trooper's conduct during his traffic stop. That said, I appreciated reading your post and the other posts in this thread -- part of the reason for being here is to learn from everyone else and I definitely figured some things out today

Steve is the epitome of a "peace officer". He's also quite a gentleman in how he expresses his opinions. (The two go hand-in-hand, I believe.)

FWIW, I understood your reaction. I am also angered when LEOs routinely disarm CHLs outside their statutory authority. That's something we need to address by TSRA talking directly to Col. Booth, or talking indirectly through the Legislature. Personally, I'd prefer to just work things out with DPS. The law is already clear enough, and it allows for officer safety. "We disarm everyone" doesn't meet the statutory requirements.

+1

bwahahaha wrote:

flintknapper wrote:

bwahahaha wrote: The Highway Patrol is largely a do-nothing agency (I don't count drug interdiction ops and traffic patrol as useful).

All in all, what a disappointing interaction with this guy.

MY........thats a bit unfair don't you think?

I think it's fair. To be very generous I'll call them a "do very little agency" instead. They nab intoxicated drivers, provide some relief to full-service agencies w/r/t collisions (OTOH, full-service agencies burn patrol time backing them up on traffic stops), and occasionally take persons wanted for felony-level offenses off the street.

The vast majority of their time, however, is spent driving around in circles running moving radar in largely unpopulated areas. They're revenue collectors -- and I think that's all that they are. Do they provide any kind of meaningful benefit? I'd love to see an accurate, impartial study that shows they do. I'd be floored.

I don't consider them to be on par with any full-service police agencies.

If you ever have an accident or other incident on Texas highways where the DPS is likely going to be the only agency to respond, I suggest you just call the nearest truck stop or Stop-and-Rob for help. If you truly believe your talk, walk the walk.

Anygun

bwahahaha wrote:
I don't consider them to be on par with any full-service police agencies.

All I have to say is:



bwahahaha!!!!!!

bwahahaha wrote:

srothstein wrote: Well, from the point of view of a long time experienced Texas officer, I would have to say that you have some valid points and a somewhat jaundiced view also.

I do have a cynical view of DPS and sometimes let that get the best of me. Today was one of those days. I am not a fan of DPS, and was very disappointed to read OP's account of a particular Trooper's conduct during his traffic stop. That said, I appreciated reading your post and the other posts in this thread -- part of the reason for being here is to learn from everyone else and I definitely figured some things out today

Excellent outcome. Thank you for being gentlemen w/ your discussion.

Well, was it a DWB thing? Gut feeling?

Big Calhoun wrote:The whole disarming thing caught me by surprise also, but I kind of felt like, who am I to question him. It was the first time I've been stopped since living in Texas and I am black so I just wanted everything to go smoothly. At the end of it, I thought he treated me with respect and was ultimately just doing his job and doing his best to keep him and I safe. No complaints here.

BrassMonkey wrote:Well, was it a DWB thing? Gut feeling?

Big Calhoun wrote:The whole disarming thing caught me by surprise also, but I kind of felt like, who am I to question him. It was the first time I've been stopped since living in Texas and I am black so I just wanted everything to go smoothly. At the end of it, I thought he treated me with respect and was ultimately just doing his job and doing his best to keep him and I safe. No complaints here.

It makes you wonder if that was why the officer choose to disarm Big Calhoun or if this how the officer handles every CHL holder he stops. I have noticed in listening to the scanner in my home county that some officers tend to ask for back up to start their way more often on traffic stops than others do. Lots of times they end up calling of the back up off before it arrives.

At least Big Calhoun was the one who had his act together in the traffic stop, even if the officer didn't.

BrassMonkey wrote:Well, was it a DWB thing? Gut feeling?

Big Calhoun wrote:The whole disarming thing caught me by surprise also, but I kind of felt like, who am I to question him. It was the first time I've been stopped since living in Texas and I am black so I just wanted everything to go smoothly. At the end of it, I thought he treated me with respect and was ultimately just doing his job and doing his best to keep him and I safe. No complaints here.

I didn't get that impression. I've had DWB stops back in New Jersey and courtesy is the last thing the officer would think about, let alone practice. Even now, a couple of days later, I honestly think he was just doing what he felt he needed to do in order to maintain a safe situation. I guess it's something to think about, but I'm young (32) and naive; I prefer to think the best of people unless they demonstrate otherwise.

Big Calhoun, I'm glad you have such a good attitude about the whole situation.

I, too, was unpleasantly surprised that the LEO disarmed you. I don't think I would consider a man with his wife and small child in the back seat to be a threat. However, I realize that these guys see things that the rest of us do not.

Besides the disarming, can anyone tell me the reason to have him exit the vehicle?

I was pulled over by a constable in Rowlett. I handed him my license and CHL and he didn't even ask where I was carrying or even acknowledge that I handed him my CHL.

Since reading this post, I have been wondering if the LEO used this scenario as a chance to "peak" inside Big Calhoun's car while returning the weapon. Sort of a "quick mini search" without having to ask permission to search. Again, I am only guessing/wondering.

And as far as pulling into the rest stop to re-load, we all know that a rest stop is a good place to get robbed. It would be a shame to pull in their with an unloaded weapon, and all of a sudden be in a position to need your firearm, which happens to be unloaded.

The whole thing sounds really bad. I will say that Big Calhoun sounds like a man with a head full of sense, and self control.

Sly Dog wrote:Since reading this post, I have been wondering if the LEO used this scenario as a chance to "peak" inside Big Calhoun's car while returning the weapon. Sort of a "quick mini search" without having to ask permission to search. Again, I am only guessing/wondering.

Now this, I did wonder about. He didn't see much except for a diaper bag, GPS unit, cellphone, and the wife and baby. As he was placing the weapon in the front seat of the car, he did seem to be talking to my wife. But I think he was trying to figure out how to unlock the door -- the front windows were down but the doors automatically lock. I honestly haven't asked my wife what occured in the conversation.

And thank you, and all, for the compliments. Maybe 10 years ago or so I would have tried to challenge authority a little but I've learned to just pick my battles. Like I said, he had me, I knew it, there was no denying it so I just didn't see a reason to make the situation any more than what it was. I'm just thankful I can take this defensive driving course and move past this.

As an aside...the car has a speed warning feature you can set that beeps at you when you go past a set speed limit. I think I'll start using that on the highway now.

flintknapper wrote:

bwahahaha wrote:

flintknapper wrote:

bwahahaha wrote: The Highway Patrol is largely a do-nothing agency (I don't count drug interdiction ops and traffic patrol as useful).

All in all, what a disappointing interaction with this guy.

MY........thats a bit unfair don't you think?

I think it's fair. To be very generous I'll call them a "do very little agency" instead. They nab intoxicated drivers, provide some relief to full-service agencies w/r/t collisions (OTOH, full-service agencies burn patrol time backing them up on traffic stops), and occasionally take persons wanted for felony-level offenses off the street.

The vast majority of their time, however, is spent driving around in circles running moving radar in largely unpopulated areas. They're revenue collectors -- and I think that's all that they are. Do they provide any kind of meaningful benefit? I'd love to see an accurate, impartial study that shows they do. I'd be floored.

I don't consider them to be on par with any full-service police agencies.

Are you speaking of Texas Dept. of Public Safety Troopers or just the "highway patrol" in general (nationwide)?

If the former, I would submit that you know very little about what they do.

I appreciate your right to have (and express) an opinion, but wouldn't an "informed" opinion be of more service to us all.

Here is a good place to start your education:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/

Thanks, Flint.

The Troopers, who are out there keeping our world safer for the rest of us, do a marvelous job, you just can't comprehend all that they do.

llwatson wrote:

bwahahaha wrote: DPS was one of a host of agencies I looked into around 2000 before joining a federal agency...

And for your decision to join the feds, I am sure DPS is better off, and grateful.