TexasCHLforum.com

According to the Mayo Clinic, which is about as reputable a source as you can find - http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/post-t ... er/DS00246" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a mental health condition that's triggered by a terrifying event. Symptoms may include flashbacks, nightmares and severe anxiety, as well as uncontrollable thoughts about the event.

I'm not a psychologist or a psychiatrist, but I believe PTSD is more pronounced when the terrifying event is more pronounced. IOW, the more terrifying (and long lasting) the event is, the more likely it is that the suffering will be acute. It also depends on the person. Some people are more easily terrified than others. Some events will traumatize one person while hardly affecting another.

pcgizzmo wrote:24 years ago when I was in the Army we had just gotten to our first duty post out of basic. A guy I went to basic with wigged out and tried to jump out a 3rd story windows. He went crazy. He was labeled with PTSD

PTSD stands for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. What was his stressor?

I believe I have personally experienced a mild case of PTSD. I had just begun reading Helter Skelter (the story of the Charles Manson murders) when I got an album of Christian music in the mail that I had been eagerly anticipating. I played the album repeatedly while reading the book. By the time I finished the book, I could no longer listen to the album. Every time I heard the songs it brought back memories of the horrific murders described in the book. I never played the album again.

I once met a woman who had been a contractor in Iraq. She drove a semi. When she returned to America, she found it really hard to drive a truck at night. She kept having flashbacks of an attack in which her co-driver was hit by an RPG and literally exploded all over her. The truck she was driving after returning was the same make and model as the one she drove in Iraq (so the interior was very familiar). The familiar environment took her right back to Iraq. In Iraq all her trips were at night. Hence the flashbacks when driving at night. She was literally a nervous wreck. I believe that's what PTSD is. It's caused by a really traumatic event (or a series of them) and manifests itself when the affected person is placed in a familiar setting that reminds them of the event or events that originally caused the stress. The more familiar the setting, the more pronounced the reaction will be.

So a person suffering from PTSD can appear perfectly normal for days, weeks, months or even years. They may not even realize they have it. But put them in an environment that brings back the memories of the trauma, and it's next to impossible to predict how they will react, except to say it won't be normal behavior. Mind you, I'm not saying this cop suffered from PTSD, but if he did, his behavior would be understandable while not excusable in that context.

I'm inclined to think that counseling will have little effect on a PTSD sufferer. It's more likely that introducing elements of the familiar setting along with positive reinforcement (music, comedy, happy events in their life) will help alter the memories and make them less stressful. I doubt seriously that a true PTSD sufferer ever truly gets over the event, especially the types of trauma experienced in combat.

JJVP wrote:Not the first time Mr. Congeniality has gone nuts. Here is a second video. I hope they fire him and put him in jail. He has no business being a cop.

http://www.fox8.com/videobeta/314f65d3- ... Canton-Cop" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Amazing! He does the exact same thing - threatening to shoot the man - "I'll shoot you in the face and I'll go to sleep at night". This cop needs to go and never serve in a LEO capacity anywhere ever. He's need psychological counseling.

Dragonfighter wrote:Ah, just following their example. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I sent Mr. Schulman the following letter.

It's amazing to me that someone with legal training and a knowledge of the Constitution can make such ignorant comments about gun ownership. Law abiding citizens who are gun owners licensed to carry are not a threat to you, your city or anyone else.

In Texas, concealed weapon carriers have a better record than law enforcement and members of the legislature. We are orders of magnitude less likely to commit a crime than the average citizen.

Watch the video of your officer's unprofessional and illegal behavior. The driver, who carried a weapon and a permit to carry it, was polite, courteous and represented no threat whatsoever to the officers at any time.

It's time the members of the legal profession either gain an understanding of the Constitution or be disbarred and never allowed to represent anyone again. You demonstrate an appalling ignorance of our basic rights.

Beiruty wrote:Many say, the search was illegal due to the lack of probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of a crime. What is the the reason that the car was stopped, or even searched?

When a cop sees a car stopped on the side of the road and a known prostitute standing outside the car, two and two isn't hard to come by. That doesn't give them the right to search the car (normally a cop would ask for permission - most people give it), but it is reasonable suspicion that an illegal transaction may be taking place.

ccpacker wrote:

speedsix wrote:...that kind of behavior makes the news, like the fat pig punching a handcuffed suspect, and a lot of harm is done to the image of our law enforcement officers...it's hard to wear the badge and know that people like this are part of what society thinks we are...the greater majority of law enforcement pukes to see this kind of "representation"...hug a cop today, please...

Give us a little credit. I don't think all men are rapist, all CHL are gun nuts, all blonds are stupid, etc. Neither do I think all LEOs are abusers of authority. Painting all members of a group with one brush without evidence is called "prejudice".

I don't think anybody is painting LEOs with a bad brush here. Most of us are very supportive of LEOs, especially the ones who frequent this forum. However, I doubt there's a LEO on this forum, or in most departments across the country, who would try to defend the actions of these two officers. Tactically and procedurally, they blew it from the beginning by not securing all the occupants of the car before conducting a search. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the second officer made a huge blunder that could have cost him his life under different circumstances. In addition, the abusive officer was clearly out of control and unprofessional after discovering the presence of a weapon.

We don't want our officers making blunders like these, because they can get them killed. But we also don't want officers who abuse the public for any reason. The second officer needs to be retrained. The first officer needs to be dismissed.

C-dub wrote:And I agree with you. I also think the guy had opportunity to notify long before the jerk went off on him. No, that doesn't justify what the jerk did.

I just rewatched a portion of the video. When the second officer enters the rear of the car, you cannot hear anything that he or the driver might have said. So all we have is the visual cues. You can view these by pausing the video and advancing it through the frames. When the officer first enters the car, the driver turns his head to the right, in the direction of the officer. The officer reacts by turning his head toward the driver. The driver immediately turns his head straight forward. The driver then turns his head a second time. This time the officer shines his flashlight in the driver's face. After that the driver remains motionless and facing forward as the officer searches the back seat. Up to this point the interaction between the officers and the three actors is routine and ordinary. I think it's reasonable to assume that when the driver turns his head he is trying to inform the officer and is rebuffed. That's what he says happened, and his actions subsequent to that indicate compliance and a desire to cooperate. I see nothing in the video to indicate his desire to hide something or to not reveal the fact that he holds a CHL.

Tactically, the officers handled the situation extremely poorly. As the first officer began questioning the passenger, he asked him to put his hands on the roof. As I observed the second officer enter the back seat, the passenger's hands were still on the roof. He actually had to move to his left to allow the officer enough room to enter the back seat. So this officer placed himself in close proximity to the passenger, bent over to enter the car, and exposed his service weapon to the passenger in a position where he would have been unable to defend himself or prevent the removal of his weapon. He wouldn't even have been able to see the passenger reach for his weapon and would only have known about it when he felt its removal. Both he and his partner should be thanking the stars in heaven that they encountered three citizens bent on nothing more than doing normal stuff. Had they been bad guys, officer 2 would almost certainly be dead, and the abusive officer would likely be as well.

When the driver exits the vehicle, hands in the air and following the commands of the officer, he has handed his DL to the officer and has his CHL in his hand. The officer asks him, "Why do you keep having that? What is this?" The driver responds, "Because I have a concealed carry...", The officer interrupts him and asks, "Do you have a weapon on you?" The driver responds, "Yes sir. That's why..." and the officer begins his unprofessional behavior.

I don't think the driver did anything wrong. It's reasonable to believe that he tried twice to inform the first officer that he was armed. When the second officer asks, "Why do you keep having that?" it is clear that he is referring to the DL and CHL which are in the driver's hand. Before the driver exits the vehicle, the officer has already begun questioning him and doesn't give him a chance to speak other than to directly answer his questions. He calls the driver a liar repeatedly, compelling the driver to defend himself rather than notify of his CHL.

gregthehand wrote:Finding good cops is really hard. If you've applied for a job in law enforcement you know how far they check into the background of potential hires but sometimes stuff just slips through.

Part of the problem is the legal atmosphere regarding employment discrimination law that prevents people from telling the truth regarding a firing. You can get sued for telling the truth about a former employee if it makes it difficult for them to find another job. I always asked references, "Would you ever hire him again?" They could answer that honestly without saying negative things about the person that could later be held against them in a lawsuit.

speedsix wrote:...it looks like the officers went white with fear, realizing how stupid they'd been and that they were searching a car, being rude to a man who turns out to have been armed...if it had been a BG...they could easily have been killed...and they overreacted and tried to make it seem his fault...instead of learning from their stupid, unprofessional actions and accepting it as a wake-up call...I wouldn't even wanna have these two working at 7-11...poor and poorer excuse for an LEO...had they been professional and done the right thing, the notification would have been given in a timely manner...

Best part of the video? The cop is calling the CHL holder stupid while being videotaped and audio recorded behaving in a totally unprofessional manner. Tell me again, who's the stupid one?