TexasCHLforum.com

The last couple of Neighborhood Association meetings where I live that our beat officer attended we were told to call 911 for any thing and every thing. I'm in the city of Dallas.
I've only lived in Texas for a couple of years and this really threw me.
In fact, I had previously looked in the phone book for a non-emergency number and could not find one.
Where I previously lived, if you called 911 for any thing other than a true emergency you were read the riot act for tying up emergency lines with non-emergency calls.
In fact, the 911 and non-emergency lines were on the same system and answered by the same operators. They just wanted to keep them separate.
I have called 911 twice for very minor, decidely non-emergency situations. It seems weird, but that's what Dallas wants.

Really interesting:
http://www.examiner.com/wisconsin-gun-r ... titutional" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PappaGun wrote:The last couple of Neighborhood Association meetings where I live that our beat officer attended we were told to call 911 for any thing and every thing. I'm in the city of Dallas.
I've only lived in Texas for a couple of years and this really threw me.
In fact, I had previously looked in the phone book for a non-emergency number and could not find one.
Where I previously lived, if you called 911 for any thing other than a true emergency you were read the riot act for tying up emergency lines with non-emergency calls.
In fact, the 911 and non-emergency lines were on the same system and answered by the same operators. They just wanted to keep them separate.
I have called 911 twice for very minor, decidely non-emergency situations. It seems weird, but that's what Dallas wants.

It is good idea to call 911. By the time they arrive on the scene, if you justifiably deployed deadly force, they will have heads up on what is going on.

G.A. Heath wrote:

philip964 wrote:And I didn't even know about this. The police could have shot all these guys if they moved at all. Sure glad the Supreme Court ruled that all subjects have a right to bear arms. Seems no one listened. I hope they get a lot of money.

At this time the United States Supreme Court has only ruled on the right to keep arms, although it has strongly indicated how it will rule when the right to bear arms comes before it.

I'm not so sure about that. This little line was in the Heller decision:

Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right
granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed
. . . .”

Notice the decision in Heller states an individual right not just to possess (keep) arms, but also to carry (bear) them.

There is no excuse for the abuse and pseudo police state tactics used here.
This story is why I think conceal carry is so important. To many, even seeing someone other than a police officer carrying a gun is quite scary. The conceal carry in Texas is designed so that nobody should know you have a gun until it comes time to put a bullet in someone.

I know several school bus drivers around here who call 911 to report stuff as small as road debris. 911 seems to be fine with it.

So as I understand this the LEO's come in and start arresting these 5 who are Open Carry which is legal. So what would have happened if this degenerated into a shootout...say a couple of citizens and LEO's were killed. Seems like it could could have been real mess then and all on the head of the Police Chief? If they were legal it sure seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen. JMHO.

AndyC wrote:Well, one can't claim self-defense if one shoots a policeman who is going about his lawful duties...

Most state self defense laws provide for defending against excessive force by police officers, including ours:

TPC wrote:§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful force.
<SNIP>
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.

Overcoming the instinct to comply and THEN PROVING you were acting under 9.31 is another story.

AndyC wrote:Well, one can't claim self-defense if one shoots a policeman who is going about his lawful duties...

True enough, but were these officers' actions lawful? That is the question!

...and I'd rather take the abuse from an officer (as long as it's not making me fear for my life or someone I really, really care about) before I would ever consider using force/deadly force to defend myself against LEO.

AndyC wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:

AndyC wrote:Well, one can't claim self-defense if one shoots a policeman who is going about his lawful duties...

Most state self defense laws provide for defending against excessive force by police officers, including ours

Note that I specifically said lawful - excessive force is not lawful, and I didn't see anything about those officers using excessive force.

C-dub wrote:True enough, but were these officers' actions lawful? That is the question!

C-dub, "lawful" doesn't mean that they have to have arrested the correct person, just that they performed the arrest legally - whether they got the right guy or to determine whether a crime was actually committed, that's for the DA to prosecute and then for the courts to decide. What do you believe was unlawful about their actions?

The officers might have been wrong in arresting the people in the first place (as I obviously believe they were) - but that's not unlawful per se.

Guys, we can't just haul out our blasters and blow away a cop just because we believe that they are wrong - you cannot claim self-defence for that.

My concern is that if I were the subject of what I considered an unlawful arrest (despite however honest the LEO was) I might see that as a threat to my life and react accordingly. Probably why I tend to avoid doing bad things in the first place as I don't ever want to be in that spot.

Good morning everyone.

The problem, as I see it, is not that I think they were arresting the wrong people. They had the right people. It's just that they weren't breaking any laws. Doesn't those two circumstances make their actions unlawful? Of course, you are right Andy, and this particular incident is not worth blasting away and probably wouldn't be held up in court anyway if they had. However, what if they passively resisted this unlawful arrest and the police became violent with them? Most of us agree that the Trooper who recently slammed a woman into a concrete wall was excessive. if she would have some how been able to fight back and either disable or kill that Trooper would she have been justified?

Like Purplehood, I don't really push the envelope of what is legal and illegal, so I'm not likely to be in this situation. Even if OC were to become legal in Texas I might not do it. And if I were to OC it would be after discussing with my local PD their policy and how they would handle the inevitable calls and what I should do when they arrive. I would probably even check with other local cities I frequent and then I still might not OC.