TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:The "reasonable" I referenced is in the portion of the law that pertains to concealed carry.

so? Is that the only place you think it matters?

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote: Please cite your source with a link.

You can believe the sky is pink if you want, I don't have to submit a link to show otherwise. If you then want to declare yourself the winner of the "Is the sky pink" debate go right ahead.

You may be right, but we don't know you from any other byte. There are a lot of experts on the interwebz, so a link or statute would be helpful. We all know that a LEO has and receives quite a bit of leeway and they also hear a lot of people say that they will hear from their lawyer, but rarely ever do.

There you go again, bringing up stuff that wasn't part of the discussion. I never said anything about the color of the sky. However, if you want to go there, I have seen a beautiful pink sky. The sunsets in the hill country can be quite amazing.

You keep going back to Terry and encounters in public. The original post involves a cop knocking on someone's, that is not a suspect in a crime, door in the middle of the night. The cop does not have the authority to enter the home much less disarm the citizen if the citizen simply has the handgun in a holster as discussed originally. How is a cop to disarm someone if the person remains in his house and the cop cannot enter without an invite or warrant?

A "Terry" stop on the street is a completely different scenario. So is a traffic stop. So is being detained, arrested or being questioned as part of an investigation of a crime.

Not trying to "win" as you put it. I just don't agree with you and I won't until you cite with a link to something specific that supports your position or someone with much more credibility than you comes along and convinces me otherwise. No hard feelings.

You may be right, but we don't know you from any other byte. There are a lot of experts on the interwebz, so a link or statute would be helpful. We all know that a LEO has and receives quite a bit of leeway and they also hear a lot of people say that they will hear from their lawyer, but rarely ever do.

Which statute? For what? If there is a law against something then could quote it but just because something isn't specificly authorized by statute doesn't mean police can't do it. It would be impossible for them to do so. Now most municipalities in texas have a falure to obey ordinance and the trafic code also has it but these are just little class C offensise and are really minor. Lets look at this from a different perspective. What are the duties of a Peace Officer?

Each sheriff shall be a conservator of the peace in his county, and shall arrest all offenders against the laws of the State, in his view or hearing, and take them before the proper court for examination or trial. He shall quell and suppress all assaults and batteries, affrays, insurrections and unlawful assemblies. He shall apprehend and commit to jail all offenders, until an examination or trial can be had.

Basically I figure if the citizens generally find an Officers actions, in trying to do his duties, reasonable then his actions are justifiable. It's not just the written law we deal with we also have 200 years of precedent that guides what is legal. Mind you that precedent does change , if slowly, over time but the fact that so many people think cops couldn't do the job without being able to secure the weapons of people they are in contact with , when necessary, means that it is considered a reasonable seizure by most citizens.

EEllis wrote:

Which statute? For what?

This is why nobody on this thread agrees with you. An officer would need support, by law, to take this action against a citizen who is not suspected of a crime on his/her own property.
You are just flat out wrong... sorry, but until you can give something other than intangibles and platitudes and terms like "reasonable" and "justifiable", you cannot be taken very seriously by anyone who has researched and understands where our rights come from. LEO cannot infringe our rights, without justification under the law... not policy, not opinion... the law.

Scott in Houston wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Which statute? For what?

This is why nobody on this thread agrees with you. An officer would need support, by law, to take this action against a citizen who is not suspected of a crime on his/her own property.
You are just flat out wrong... sorry, but until you can give something other than intangibles and platitudes and terms like "reasonable" and "justifiable", you cannot be taken very seriously by anyone who has researched and understands where our rights come from. LEO cannot infringe our rights, without justification under the law... not policy, not opinion... the law.

"Cannot", "Do Not", and "Should Not" are very, very, very different things.

An LEO's perceived authority and authority under the law are very, very different things.

Example:

LEO: Knock Knock

Homeowner: Hello, what can I do for you.

LEO: First, could you disarm for both our safety and then step outside so we can chat.

At this point the LEO is standing in someone's doorway, with a badge, in a uniform, and giving what 90% of society is going to perceive as a lawful order. Most folks just aren't going to stand up and say "well, actually I do mind."

steveincowtown wrote:

Scott in Houston wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Which statute? For what?

This is why nobody on this thread agrees with you. An officer would need support, by law, to take this action against a citizen who is not suspected of a crime on his/her own property.
You are just flat out wrong... sorry, but until you can give something other than intangibles and platitudes and terms like "reasonable" and "justifiable", you cannot be taken very seriously by anyone who has researched and understands where our rights come from. LEO cannot infringe our rights, without justification under the law... not policy, not opinion... the law.

"Cannot", "Do Not", and "Should Not" are very, very, very different things.

An LEO's perceived authority and authority under the law are very, very different things.

Example:

LEO: Knock Knock

Homeowner: Hello, what can I do for you.

LEO: First, could you disarm for both our safety and then step outside so we can chat.

At this point the LEO is standing in someone's doorway, with a badge, in a uniform, and giving what 90% of society is going to perceive as a lawful order. Most folks just aren't going to stand up and say "well, actually I do mind."

Correct. They are different things, but the posts above are implying that they can have you disarm even if you object. The cannot do that under the law... period. If they do, they are not acting within the law. There is no statute requiring a homeowner to disarm unless suspected of a crime.

This is why nobody on this thread agrees with you. An officer would need support, by law, to take this action against a citizen who is not suspected of a crime on his/her own property.
You are just flat out wrong... sorry, but until you can give something other than intangibles and platitudes and terms like "reasonable" and "justifiable", you cannot be taken very seriously by anyone who has researched and understands where our rights come from. LEO cannot infringe our rights, without justification under the law... not policy, not opinion... the law.

Look at my actual responses and not at what you think I'm saying. If an officer can compel your presence he can disarm you and have no consequences for doing so. Now if an officer asks and you say no the they have a decision to make as to their belief in the threat and reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain you. And these things are not exactly intangibles either. The laws that allow the use of deadly weapons use the same term "reasonable" but I bet you are all on board with that. Laws have to be written like that and we rely on the courts to show exactly where the line is. Not just the judges and the lawyers mind you, but also the citizens who serve on the juries who decide if they feel someone's actions are "reasonable". Now the police can't legal just take anyone's gun but then I've never said that they could, but if turning and walking away will get you jumped and cuffed then yes the police can disarm you.

And lets not forget it only matters what the officer perceives in this type of situation. This is not surprising, in the use of deadly force it doesn't require there to be a "real" threat, just that the person "reasonably believes" the force is necessary. When an officer approaches you, you just don't know what information they have or do not have. Without knowing that you can't say what actions are legal and reasonable. That doesn't mean you must always disarm when asked but there is normally a difference between being asked and ordered. You can refuse a request but if you refuse an order bad things happen.