Disarmed by uninformed officer

[Solaris]

1) You need a better retention holster.

2) I would not have gone back in but would have got out, just in case the cop changed his mind and decided he was in the right and wanted to make an arrest.

[tyree]

Was it a retention holster?

[robwoz]

This is a scary scenario. If someone came out to me unannounced and reached for my gun, my first reaction would be to place my hand over it so it can't be removed from the holster. What that cop did could have gone south really quick, and could have resulted in one or both of you shot.

[C-dub]

Okay legal eagles and LEOs. A LEO has the right to disarm us, but is this manner within their rights? If not, how does this not fall into the category of assault? Is it just because it was a LEO? If so, that doesn't seem right.

[JP171]

Okay legal eagles and LEOs. A LEO has the right to disarm us, but is this manner within their rights? If not, how does this not fall into the category of assault? Is it just because it was a LEO? If so, that doesn't seem right.

I kinda agree with you but, as the officer understood the law(no matter how wrong) it is illegal to bring a firearm into a liquor store under the 51%provision he was acting within the color of his authority(again no matter how wrong he was) he it seems possibly chose a different route than arresting and charging the OP by removing the weapon from the OP and the store. Yes his training is apparently substandard or he ignored it and is willfully ignorant and negligent but if he had chosen to call the local PD it would have been more of a pain as well if the local pd agreed with him.

[ScottDLS]

Okay legal eagles and LEOs. A LEO has the right to disarm us, but is this manner within their rights? If not, how does this not fall into the category of assault? Is it just because it was a LEO? If so, that doesn't seem right.

I kinda agree with you but, as the officer understood the law(no matter how wrong) it is illegal to bring a firearm into a liquor store under the 51%provision he was acting within the color of his authority(again no matter how wrong he was) he it seems possibly chose a different route than arresting and charging the OP by removing the weapon from the OP and the store. Yes his training is apparently substandard or he ignored it and is willfully ignorant and negligent but if he had chosen to call the local PD it would have been more of a pain as well if the local pd agreed with him.

Is "as he understood the law" the standard in all cases? Seems kind of lax for physically assaulting someone.

[viking1000]

In my opinion as a former LEO, his whole manor was inappropriate . Try to report it if it is any good.. Depends on the attitude of the Sheriff..
You might check at the state level..

[C-dub]

My question wasn't about whether he was right or wrong since it is clear that he was wrong. I'm curious about his method of disarmament. Were he not a LEO what he did would clearly be an assault. It would be if someone attempted to disarm a LEO like that and likely result in their death. My question is, due to his ignorance, is he given a free pass on the "assault" because of being a LEO? And at what point does that free pass no longer apply?

[Jago668]

Okay legal eagles and LEOs. A LEO has the right to disarm us, but is this manner within their rights? If not, how does this not fall into the category of assault? Is it just because it was a LEO? If so, that doesn't seem right.

I kinda agree with you but, as the officer understood the law(no matter how wrong) it is illegal to bring a firearm into a liquor store under the 51%provision he was acting within the color of his authority(again no matter how wrong he was) he it seems possibly chose a different route than arresting and charging the OP by removing the weapon from the OP and the store. Yes his training is apparently substandard or he ignored it and is willfully ignorant and negligent but if he had chosen to call the local PD it would have been more of a pain as well if the local pd agreed with him.

Is "as he understood the law" the standard in all cases? Seems kind of lax for physically assaulting someone.

Yes it is, thanks to our wonderful SCOTUS. Heien vs North Carolina, 8-1 vote with Sotomayor was the one and only dissent.

[WildBill]

Lucky for both parties that there were no injuries.

[ScottDLS]

Okay legal eagles and LEOs. A LEO has the right to disarm us, but is this manner within their rights? If not, how does this not fall into the category of assault? Is it just because it was a LEO? If so, that doesn't seem right.

I kinda agree with you but, as the officer understood the law(no matter how wrong) it is illegal to bring a firearm into a liquor store under the 51%provision he was acting within the color of his authority(again no matter how wrong he was) he it seems possibly chose a different route than arresting and charging the OP by removing the weapon from the OP and the store. Yes his training is apparently substandard or he ignored it and is willfully ignorant and negligent but if he had chosen to call the local PD it would have been more of a pain as well if the local pd agreed with him.

Is "as he understood the law" the standard in all cases? Seems kind of lax for physically assaulting someone.

Yes it is, thanks to our wonderful SCOTUS. Heien vs North Carolina, 8-1 vote with Sotomayor was the one and only dissent.

That regards "reasonableness" of a traffic stop and suppression of evidence discovered. I don't think the officer in the original post disarmed OP incident to arrest or questioning, he just grabbed the guy's weapon.

He might have been on stronger grounds if he attempted to arrest him for what he believed was a felony, but that's not apparently what happened. I'd like to see the Texas courts weigh in on a similar situation before we declare this as the standard justification for assault.

[Bayoutalker]

Legal or not he was very lucky you saw him and knew who he was before he reached for your firearm. If he surprised you and you would have been on your guard and acted quickly you might have done him some serious bodily harm and that wouldn't have been good for either of you.

[MeMelYup]

But, wasn't he being employed as a security guard, not in his capacity as a police officer?

[puma guy]

Okay legal eagles and LEOs. A LEO has the right to disarm us, but is this manner within their rights? If not, how does this not fall into the category of assault? Is it just because it was a LEO? If so, that doesn't seem right.

I kinda agree with you but, as the officer understood the law(no matter how wrong) it is illegal to bring a firearm into a liquor store under the 51%provision he was acting within the color of his authority(again no matter how wrong he was) he it seems possibly chose a different route than arresting and charging the OP by removing the weapon from the OP and the store. Yes his training is apparently substandard or he ignored it and is willfully ignorant and negligent but if he had chosen to call the local PD it would have been more of a pain as well if the local pd agreed with him.

While it is illegal to carry an unlicensed handgun into a liquor store, but it is not illegal to carry if one is LTC - openly or concealed.


From TABC


Off-Premise Retail Establishment

Four signs are required to be posted at an off-premise retail establishment such as a convenience store or grocery store.
•Weapons Warning Sign: It is unlawful to carry a weapon on the premises unless the person is licensed to carry the weapon under the concealed handgun law.
•Consumption Warning Sign: It is a crime (misdemeanor) to consume liquor or beer on these premises.
•Public Information/Complaint Sign - If you have a complaint about the sale or service of alcoholic beverages in this establishment, please contact the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, PO Box 13127, Austin, Texas 78711-3127, or phone 1-888-THE-TABC.
•National Human Trafficking Hotline Number (English and Spanish) - WARNING: Obtaining forced labor or services is a crime under Texas law. Call the national human trafficking hotline: 1-888-373-7888. You may remain anonymous.

The 51% sign pertains to on premises consumption establishments.

On-Premise Retail Establishment

Four signs are required to be posted at an on-premise retail establishment such as a bar or restaurant.
•Weapons Warning Sign - If alcohol sales constitute less than half of gross receipts, the required sign says: "It is unlawful to carry a weapon on the premises unless the person is licensed to carry the weapon under the concealed handgun law." If alcohol sales constitute more than half of gross receipts, the signs have 51% in large red letters superimposed over the warning which notes that possession of a concealed weapon on the premises is a felony.
•Public Information/Complaint Sign - If you have a complaint about the sale or service of alcoholic beverages in this establishment, please contact the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, PO Box 13127, Austin, Texas 78711-3127, or phone 1-888-THE-TABC.
•National Human Trafficking Hotline Number (English and Spanish) - WARNING: Obtaining forced labor or services is a crime under Texas law. Call the national human trafficking hotline: 1-888-373-7888. You may remain anonymous. (Restaurants that hold a Food and Beverage Certificate are exempt from this requirement.)
•Health Risk Warning Sign: Warning of the dangers associated with drinking alcoholic beverages during pregnancy. Visit our Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders page for more information.



https://www.tabc.state.tx.us/laws/sign_requirements.asp

[Soap]

I guess ignorance of the law is no excuse only applies to us peons,

Didn't the courts rule officers can be excused for ignorance of the law but not civies?