TexasCHLforum.com

speedsix wrote:...well, I said I was done here after Keith B did...but he's not and neither am I...I'm posting one last time to this thread...I don't believe what I'm reading...

Keith B wrote:
"Let's face it, the guy had issues before in Philadelphia, so he knew that they were sensitive to open carry and he was expecting a confrontation as already had the recorder running. Was he legally within his rights to open carry, yes. Should the cop have given him the hassle, no. But, as my Momma used to say, if you go looking for a fight, you can usually find one.

What I hope happens from this is that the Philadelphia Police change their policy on open carry, and it stands as an example of how to deal with it legally. However, it should also stand as an example how to potentially get yourself shot if you go looking for trouble."


..yeah, the guy had issues before...he'd been hassled by OTHER cops who thought THEY were above the law, and could keep him from doing what the law said he could do...just because THEY didn't agree with state law AND THEIR DEPARTMENT POLICY...excercising your legal rights and carrying a recorder to protect yourself because you've been harassed in the past for doing so is NOT "...looking for a fight..."
...the Philadelphia Police don't need to change their policy on open carry...he cited to them their OWN department directive saying that what he was doing was both legal and in line with the PD's "Policy"....but some rogue cops who thought they were the law and ignored both state law and dept. policy were determined to harass him anyways...and threaten him...and lecture him...and badger him...that's official oppression...
"...and it stands as an example of how to deal with it legally..."...certainly not for the cops involved...they dealt with it totally illegally...on multiple occasions...

...your last statement is, to remain civil, totally incorrect and ignoring the facts...hanging onto your opinion that he was looking for trouble, even knowing that he'd been harassed multiple times before, and "...an example how to potentially get yourself shot if you go looking for trouble" reads, to me, that you feel that they had a reason to draw down on him before even addressing him, and in spite of what the account gives us that they would be justified in shooting him...and neither is right...
...by the facts we were given, the man was totally within his rights as the law allows...and their Department's written directive...and subsequent confirmation by the city's attorney supported...and re-training of the officers who didn't get it reaffirmed..

...and he was looking for a fight??? and if you can get yourself shot by the police who are ignoring the law, while you are keeping the law...we've lost the battle already...murder by police is not to be feared nor accepted...they were totally in the wrong...and to live in fear of what rogue police might do reeks of a society I refuse to live in...I put my butt on the line for the rule of law for several years...BOTH the citizen and the LEOs must be held accountable when they don't live within it...to suggest that one is looking for trouble by obeying the law, and to warn that "you might be shot"...is kinda like saying "If you go when the light is green, you could potentially get rundown and killed"...it flies in the face of common sense...and is not the way the law was written....he did nothing wrong...and they did nothing right...oh, except maybe to refrain from shooting him...

steveincowtown wrote:

Keith B wrote: This guy went 'Trolling for Cops'.

I am not pointing a finger at Keith, but at soceity here.

It is truly saddens me that anyone that is doing something within not only the laws of their locality but moreover within their constitutional rights would ever be considered “Trolling for Cops.” Our forefathers paid with their blood, and the blood of their family to earn the rights we have today and it really is a pitty that they are slipping away at an alarming rate.

Katygunnut wrote:I find the statement by the Philidelphia Police spokesman to be particularly troubling. "local authorities are warning gun owners that they will be "inconvenienced" if they carry unconcealed handguns in the city."

How is this any different from the chief of police in Katy openly warning young minorities that they will be "inconvenienced" if they go into wealthier areas of the city? I don't think any police department would be stupid enough to make such an ignorant statement in public, and yet IMHO the Philly police dept position is just as bad since both are publicly threatening those who exercise fundamental civil rights.

I agree that it is easier to just go along with the oppression of our rights instead of fighting for our liberties. Fortunately we have brave men and women in our midst who will not take the easy way out, and are willing to suffer personal inconvenience and potential abuse / incarceration / or even the loss of their lives to stand up for what is right. They are fighting for our rights just like I and my fellow veterans have done.

Bullwhip wrote:

Keith B wrote: If I'm not mistaken, Handog was not printing, but accidentally exposed his CCW. Woman saw it, alerted police.

Define "arrested"?

i think srothstein was the one who posted the case law, but every traffic stop in Texas means the driver is "arrested" until its over.

So no matter how many responded, Handog was "arrested" if he couldn't just walk away. If the police didn't have RAS that he was UCW, case dismissed.

Beiruty wrote:This is why OC by CHLer should pass. No arrest for printing ever! No arrest ever for going to the range while OC.

Mike1951 wrote:

sugar land dave wrote:

handog wrote:When its someone else being ordered to get on his knees during a routine stop it’s called inconvenient. When it you its humiliating. Nevertheless, surrender to the Police state indoctrination and have a nice day.

I know, but... Sometimes in life you have to choose the lesser of two evils. Being humiliated vs having a bullet suddenly introduced into your body... Drug-crazed robbers and adrenaline-pumped LEO's are both dangerous when they have their firearms pointed at you.

Dave, as a recent member, you might not be aware that handog has gained a unique perspective on this. He may be the only CHL arrested for 'printing' and he faced a large, aggressive police response.

Consequently, I hold his opinion above all others on this subject.

clarionite wrote:

philip964 wrote:When a police officer tells you to get on your knees, you get on your knees.

In Las Vegas this guy would have been dead already and the recorder would have been missing.

So does this guy walk around with a sound recorder on all the time?. Seems odd or was he expecting or wanting trouble.

He's had trouble more than once for following the laws of the state. He was doing nothing illegal, and more than once was occosted
by the police. I'd say that warrants carrying a recorder with you in case it ever happens again. After all, without a recording it's his
word against theirs.

carlson1 wrote:

philip964 wrote:When a police officer tells you to get on your knees, you get on your knees.

Not me I can't, so now what?

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:In posts above, there have been 2 references to filing legal motions under
the 1983 Civil Rights Act.

Can someone give a thumbnail sketch as to what this law covers, and why
it might be applicable to the LEO/CHL confrontation?

TIA / SIA

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983
Prev | Next § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

speedsix wrote:...we're not talking about a big truck with no reasoning powers...we're talking about a public servant who is trained and supposed to be professional...who is restricted in the use of his powers by law...now back to the cop...he had no reason to draw down on the citizen...the article doesn't say he got a scary call from a citizen...I don't want to live in an America where I can be obeying the law and find myself looking down a cop's gun barrel, being made to kneel or prone out in the dirt, be cuffed and thrown into a paddy wagon...if we DON'T vigorously, lawfully protest such "police action" when it's like this...those things will become a way of life...and as far as being afraid that he'll murder me...I'm just not...he didn't challenge the cop, he just told him he was acting within the law...which he was...if I'm going to bang my head, it's going to be because folks think we have to roll over for abusive authority...and the charges added later are clearly trumped-up to try to head off a lawsuit...which they will surely lose...prolly allowing them to go after his carry permit...the whole thing smells like old fish...it's an embarrassment to decent law enforcement...

Winchster wrote:

Keith B wrote:

Winchster wrote:Question for the LEO's on the board... When told not to move AND told to get on your knees, which should you do?

You follow the orders. As long as they are not directing you to do something that will further endanger you or cause you or someone else harm, you best listen. Otherwise, your family could be the ones fighting your wrongful death suit against the city if for some reason the officer panics or misinterprets a move you make. It happened in Las Vegas.

I think you may have misunderstood me. According to the recording he was given simultaneous conflicting orders. My perspective is to ask which is it, don't move or get down on my knees which requires movement?

speedsix wrote:...Keith B, he stopped, was not resisting nor had he done ANYTHING that resembled a crime...why did the officer need to have him on his knees...and why did he change his mind...and tell him not to move...I believe from what we read that the officer was all flustered and angry...NOT in any kind of fear for his safety...the officer was violating law and his department policy without any reason to believe this man was a threat...their following conversation showed not that they felt that he'd committed or was about to commit a crime, but that he was doing something they thought he shouldn't...I hope he sues the department and the officers...if the facts are as they were written in the linked account, the officer handled it all wrong and so did his backup...even if the guy's a jerk and intended to make a test of this...their initial stop/conversation were handled all wrong...I'd have argued, too...why should I ruin my knees and suffer humiliation just because of an ignorant, bigoted cop?...Many officers across the country have handled open carry folks MUCH more professionally than this...it wasn't necessary...and if the officer'd shot him for not following his orders...it'd have been murder...according to the account, he didn't make one motion or say one thing to justify being shot...at least I taught my rookies not to kill a man with empty hands...

Winchster wrote:Question for the LEO's on the board... When told not to move AND told to get on your knees, which should you do?