TexasCHLforum.com

KBCraig wrote:

Odin wrote:

KBCraig wrote:I appreciate the risks that police take, but I do get a bit tired of the worn-out cliche of "just trying to survive my shift".

When it comes to dangerous jobs, police officers don't even make the top 10 list. They might get more physical, and even get injured, but they don't get killed on the job nearly as often as people think. Farmers are more than twice as likely as police officers to die on the job.

That is only because police officers continuously train, are vigilant, and are prepared to counter the danger they face daily. Farmers and convenience store clerks, etc... may have higher rates of death per capita, but if they took the same steps that LEO's take to protect themselves they would be much lower on the list. So it's not that police work isn't more dangerous, it's that the other folks are less cautious and prepared.

Ah, so it's because other professions are stupid, untrained, and ill-prepared. They must deserve it, then.

Don't forget: I am a LEO. Yes, I want to make it home at the end of my shift. I also realize that my risks are much lower than the night clerk at Motel 6, even though (unlike me), the night clerk isn't initiating confrontational situations with those who seek to do him harm. If some thug seeks to do me harm, it's because I've at least intruded on his life in some way, and if I'm more cautious and prepared than cab drivers and convenience store clerks, it's because my job description involves whacking hornet's nests, not knowing which one of them contains live hornets.

I think Its rediculous that you find it necessary to insult other professions. Odin did nothing of the sort, he was simply stating that an LEO possess's more training and tools to defend themselves than say, a 7/11 clerk. I also find it funny that you just used the worn out cliche that you are so tired of.

2007 was the deadliest year to be a police officer save for 2001, because of the 9/11 attack. The report that I read said that as of Dec 26th 2007 186 police officers were slain in the line of duty.

KBCraig wrote:I appreciate the risks that police take, but I do get a bit tired of the worn-out cliche of "just trying to survive my shift".

When it comes to dangerous jobs, police officers don't even make the top 10 list. They might get more physical, and even get injured, but they don't get killed on the job nearly as often as people think. Farmers are more than twice as likely as police officers to die on the job.

Well why dont you go say that to the families of the 186 police officers who died in the line of duty last year.

100%

Flint, I feel like we are agreeing on most of this argument.

I just think, as I am sure you do , that an LEO has a obligation and a responsibility to defend himself and others...this goes for every man/women but more so for LEO's. I am also sure that you and I both think that there are certain occasions when an LEO should be able to disarm people, I DO NOT think that a policy should be in affect to disarm all CHLs, I must of said this 4-5 times by now.

I guess the part where we are disagreeing is that I believe an LEO should be able to use his street smarts and on the job experience to determine if there is a safety risk and disarm someone. I understand that you do not want to be disarmed, but I doubt you or many other people on this forum would give a cop a reason to feel endangered. Is there occasions where CHL's are disarmed for the sheer fact that an LEO is green/nervous/paranoid, yes and is that a problem? Yes again. If something like that were to happen then you should file a complaint and try and get the problem resolved. However, I do firmly believe that the decision is in the hands of the officer and he just like we must face the consequences of his actions if they are ruled to be inappropriate.

We are in agreement, I do not think that LEO's should have a policy to disarm CHLer's, BUT I also believe that if an LEO does disarm you he more than likely has a good reason to do so. I dont think that taking away an LEO's ability to disarm folks is a good idea, as there are many times when people decide to use weapons against them and a cop should be able to determine for himself when he may or may not be in danger.

I really dont know what else could be said on the matter.

In every part of our daily lives there will be things we do not deem fair, and I am not saying that the traffic stop sounds like a job well done or anything but without the officers perspective who know why the individual was disarmed. There are many reasons why he could of been disarmed, maybe the cop was new a newbie and did not know what the heck he was doing.

I was not trying to say that no one ever gets disarmed during a traffic stop, I am simply saying that so few people report being disarmed and yet such a HUGE stink is raised over it. There are almost 2500 member on this forum and you can come up with 7 examples of CHLs being disarmed? Whoopdeedo. The VAST majority of traffic stops seem to go off with out a hitch, I say good job Texas LEO's thanks for not infringing upon our 2a rights and keep up the good work.

It boils down to this...LEO's are generally good people who have taken up a life in a position of authority, a CHL holder is a generally good civilian who has chosen to take advantage of their 2a rights but is NOT in a position of authority. So you have a few choices; refuse to disarm and be arrested; disarm and accept your ticket and go about your merry way; file a complaint; or not break the law in the first place and never have to worry about it. The choice is yours to make, just be prepared to face the consequences.

I respect LEO the same as I respect every man, because they are in fact people pulled from the general populace, they are not perfect and many will make mistakes. The same could be said about EVERY single person on this forum, no one here can say that they have never made mistakes at their job. I understand that LEO's have great responsibility and with that comes a huge microscope on everything they do, but what you need to understand is that they are people just like you. I doubt during guard mount (or rollcall or whatever they call it) that the patrolman are wondering how many people they can disarm that day. Stop looking for monsters in the shadows just long enough to see that MOST Cops are very good, very responsible people who care about there fellow man.

flintknapper wrote: Of course, we all hope this is true.

Just to make things clear, what are a few things you would consider to be "good reasons" as concerns an officer disarming a CHL, please be specific.

Thanks,

Flint.

Overly aggressive behavior
If the CHL appears to be under the influence of drugs/alchohol
Also, a lot of things that an LEO does are based off of personal experience and intuition, so if you start acting overly nervous, or your behavior is such that it gives the LEO reason to believe you could become aggresive, then I believe disarming would be justifiable.

Those are just off the top of my head, I am sure there are plenty more.

I dont understand why all of you are making comments about how bad it is for it to be a general policy to disarm ALL CHL's. Unless I have missed something no one is saying that, it is a good thing, just that they think if an LEO decides for WHATEVER reason that he needs to disarm them, then he should do so. So stop jumping everyones bones that disagrees with you. I have yet to see anyone that has brought forth anything saying that any department has a policy to disarm CHL's. How many of you have ever even been disarmed? I think that people are getting awfully upset where there doesnt even seem to be a problem.

The fact of the matter is this...as stated by pretty much everyone in this thread, an LEO has the authority to disarm an individual if he REASONABLY believes they present a threat to his safety. This threat is determined by the objective reasonableness of the officer on scene. You may never know why he disarmed you (should it ever happen in the first place) but I think it is safe to assume that most LEO's would not disarm you without good reason.

Let's get one thing clear: I do NOT think it should be general policy to disarm all CHL holders, BUT if the officer for whatever reason thinks disarming someone is in the best interest of his safety I fully support it. MOST CHL holders are the good guys yes...but you cant say that everyone who has a license to carry is a good person. I would also like to see a story in which an LEO disarmed someone and discharged the weapon, I've looked and havent been able to find a single occasion, maybe someone else can work better google magic than me.

At the risk of being called a cop hater again.

We don't ask the LEO to disarm himself when he comes in contact with with us. We have no reason to believe that they are any less likely to shoot us than we CHL holders are to shoot them. Read the paper, LEOs becoming unnecessarily violent is is almost a daily event. Our background Investigation is the same as theirs.
Admitedly we don't always know whats going on in an officers mind, there may have been some kind of violent incident moments before with an automobile simular to one that he stopped. I don't suggest that we argue or make a big deal out of it while we are stopped., but complaining about it after the fact is certainly within reason. My concern about it is that removing a handgun from its holster and handing it to a stranger who knows nothing about it is an exposure to risk. I have seen some officers at the range that I go to, and the gun handling that I've noticed tends to be sloppy compared to most of the regulars I've noticed, and often they don't react positively to constructive critisism, particularly at a stop. If a cop shoots himself with my gun, it isn't going to pleasant experiance for him or I.

As far as asking an LEO to disarm himself; a CHL holder isnt charged with keeping the public safe, but an LEO is. Watch some video of traffic stops during which an LEO was shot at, its pretty hard to see it coming, so if a LEO thinks its a good idea to disarm you for his safety then IMO he shouldn't hesitate to do so. Also, it is just a *tiny* bit harder to become an LEO than it is to get a CHL, and yes LEO's do become violent on occasion, but so do civilians and cops have to deal with those individuals on a daily basis. Don't you think you might just be a little more cautious around an individual with a weapon if you had to deal with shootings every day? I have been to plenty of ranges and seen plenty of people do STUPID things, being an LEO/CHL holder has nothing to do with it, just look at all the range accidents and ND's that happen. Most of the comments you have made about LEO's could be said about the general populace as well, if I walked over to you and told you your grip was wrong, or whatever you probably wouldnt react to positively either.

If I was on a traffic stop and an LEO disarmed me I would not think any less of them, because he/she is doing doing his job and trying to make sure he can go home to his family at the end of the day.