Police take Levelland Man's CHL - Closure UPDATE 8/28/15

[jmra]

What if he called DPS and reported it stolen?

That would be great!

That could lead to being arrested for filing a false police report. Unless the officers took the ID for their own use, resale, etc, it would not be theft. In this situation they , wrongly in my opinion, believed the man had committed a crime. They seized his CHL as evidence they believed pertained to that crime. The worst thing that happened is that at a later point the DA, detectives, or whoever, decide that they don't believe there was a crime and release the ID because then it's no longer evidence. That isn't theft. Now if these officers said they were taking the CHL for some other reason or if they said it was because he couldn't be trusted or whatever then it could become a whole abuse of powers thing. If the cops know, and we are talking about being told by the DA or their boss or having tried and failed to be able to prosecute multiple times not "internet" knowing, that there is no possible case then there would also be an issue. We have absolutely no evidence presented that anything like that occurred so ......

Another example of how "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a one way street.

[EEllis]

I would lean toward the abuse of power angle. Theft doesn't half to be for personal use or resale. If it were taken unlawfully, isn't that theft? How would the license itself be evidence? Wouldn't that be the gun in this case, which they let him keep?

Whatever. Good luck on making a theft case.

[Jim Beaux]

What if he called DPS and reported it stolen?

That would be great!

That could lead to being arrested for filing a false police report. Unless the officers took the ID for their own use, resale, etc, it would not be theft. In this situation they , wrongly in my opinion, believed the man had committed a crime. They seized his CHL as evidence they believed pertained to that crime. The worst thing that happened is that at a later point the DA, detectives, or whoever, decide that they don't believe there was a crime and release the ID because then it's no longer evidence. That isn't theft. Now if these officers said they were taking the CHL for some other reason or if they said it was because he couldn't be trusted or whatever then it could become a whole abuse of powers thing. If the cops know, and we are talking about being told by the DA or their boss or having tried and failed to be able to prosecute multiple times not "internet" knowing, that there is no possible case then there would also be an issue. We have absolutely no evidence presented that anything like that occurred so ......

Evidence would not be his license but his gun. In de facto they "suspended" his CHL & it appears to be as a punitive action. Judge, jury, & executioner.

[EEllis]

What if he called DPS and reported it stolen?

That would be great!

That could lead to being arrested for filing a false police report. Unless the officers took the ID for their own use, resale, etc, it would not be theft. In this situation they , wrongly in my opinion, believed the man had committed a crime. They seized his CHL as evidence they believed pertained to that crime. The worst thing that happened is that at a later point the DA, detectives, or whoever, decide that they don't believe there was a crime and release the ID because then it's no longer evidence. That isn't theft. Now if these officers said they were taking the CHL for some other reason or if they said it was because he couldn't be trusted or whatever then it could become a whole abuse of powers thing. If the cops know, and we are talking about being told by the DA or their boss or having tried and failed to be able to prosecute multiple times not "internet" knowing, that there is no possible case then there would also be an issue. We have absolutely no evidence presented that anything like that occurred so ......

Evidence would not be his license but his gun. In de facto they "suspended" his CHL & it appears to be as a punitive action. Judge, jury, & executioner.

I get you are making an argument and so am I. The only problem is while I acknowledge there can be two sides many can't seem to do so. If not then there is no point to discussing anything and the forum will quickly end up a boring echo chamber.

Executioner, really?

[C-dub]

I would lean toward the abuse of power angle. Theft doesn't half to be for personal use or resale. If it were taken unlawfully, isn't that theft? How would the license itself be evidence? Wouldn't that be the gun in this case, which they let him keep?

Whatever. Good luck on making a theft case.

Getting a little touchy? If you say there can be two sides as you said to Jim Beaux, it sure doesn't seem like that here. I'm not telling you that my opinion is correct and yours is wrong. I'm asking you what is wrong with mine, but instead you come back with this arrogant condescending attitude.

[Jim Beaux]

What if he called DPS and reported it stolen?

That would be great!

That could lead to being arrested for filing a false police report. Unless the officers took the ID for their own use, resale, etc, it would not be theft. In this situation they , wrongly in my opinion, believed the man had committed a crime. They seized his CHL as evidence they believed pertained to that crime. The worst thing that happened is that at a later point the DA, detectives, or whoever, decide that they don't believe there was a crime and release the ID because then it's no longer evidence. That isn't theft. Now if these officers said they were taking the CHL for some other reason or if they said it was because he couldn't be trusted or whatever then it could become a whole abuse of powers thing. If the cops know, and we are talking about being told by the DA or their boss or having tried and failed to be able to prosecute multiple times not "internet" knowing, that there is no possible case then there would also be an issue. We have absolutely no evidence presented that anything like that occurred so ......

Evidence would not be his license but his gun. In de facto they "suspended" his CHL & it appears to be as a punitive action. Judge, jury, & executioner.

I get you are making an argument and so am I. The only problem is while I acknowledge there can be two sides many can't seem to do so. If not then there is no point to discussing anything and the forum will quickly end up a boring echo chamber.

Executioner, really?

Condescending rhetoric doesnt support your flawed contention & youre right, there is no further point in discussing this.

[Cedar Park Dad]

How about we all play nice now.

[EEllis]

I would lean toward the abuse of power angle. Theft doesn't half to be for personal use or resale. If it were taken unlawfully, isn't that theft? How would the license itself be evidence? Wouldn't that be the gun in this case, which they let him keep?

Whatever. Good luck on making a theft case.

Getting a little touchy? If you say there can be two sides as you said to Jim Beaux, it sure doesn't seem like that here. I'm not telling you that my opinion is correct and yours is wrong. I'm asking you what is wrong with mine, but instead you come back with this arrogant condescending attitude.

Take it as you wish. On my part I am just tired and just don't feel like getting into it on every little issue.

[EEllis]

What if he called DPS and reported it stolen?

That would be great!

That could lead to being arrested for filing a false police report. Unless the officers took the ID for their own use, resale, etc, it would not be theft. In this situation they , wrongly in my opinion, believed the man had committed a crime. They seized his CHL as evidence they believed pertained to that crime. The worst thing that happened is that at a later point the DA, detectives, or whoever, decide that they don't believe there was a crime and release the ID because then it's no longer evidence. That isn't theft. Now if these officers said they were taking the CHL for some other reason or if they said it was because he couldn't be trusted or whatever then it could become a whole abuse of powers thing. If the cops know, and we are talking about being told by the DA or their boss or having tried and failed to be able to prosecute multiple times not "internet" knowing, that there is no possible case then there would also be an issue. We have absolutely no evidence presented that anything like that occurred so ......

Evidence would not be his license but his gun. In de facto they "suspended" his CHL & it appears to be as a punitive action. Judge, jury, & executioner.

I get you are making an argument and so am I. The only problem is while I acknowledge there can be two sides many can't seem to do so. If not then there is no point to discussing anything and the forum will quickly end up a boring echo chamber.

Executioner, really?

Condescending rhetoric doesnt support your flawed contention & youre right, there is no further point in discussing this.

I wasn't trying to support it. I was trying to convey why I wasn't going to continue to discuss it.

[Keith B]

What if he called DPS and reported it stolen?

That would be great!

That could lead to being arrested for filing a false police report. Unless the officers took the ID for their own use, resale, etc, it would not be theft. In this situation they , wrongly in my opinion, believed the man had committed a crime. They seized his CHL as evidence they believed pertained to that crime. The worst thing that happened is that at a later point the DA, detectives, or whoever, decide that they don't believe there was a crime and release the ID because then it's no longer evidence. That isn't theft. Now if these officers said they were taking the CHL for some other reason or if they said it was because he couldn't be trusted or whatever then it could become a whole abuse of powers thing. If the cops know, and we are talking about being told by the DA or their boss or having tried and failed to be able to prosecute multiple times not "internet" knowing, that there is no possible case then there would also be an issue. We have absolutely no evidence presented that anything like that occurred so ......

Evidence would not be his license but his gun. In de facto they "suspended" his CHL & it appears to be as a punitive action. Judge, jury, & executioner.

I get you are making an argument and so am I. The only problem is while I acknowledge there can be two sides many can't seem to do so. If not then there is no point to discussing anything and the forum will quickly end up a boring echo chamber.

Executioner, really?

Condescending rhetoric doesnt support your flawed contention & youre right, there is no further point in discussing this.

I wasn't trying to support it. I was trying to convey why I wasn't going to continue to discuss it.

Then stop. Both of you.

[Blue Demon]

I am a member of [a prepaid legal service] and would have called them immediately.

[Moderator edit.]

[steveincowtown]

I am a member of [a prepaid legal service] and would have called them immediately.

[Moderator edit.]

Unless you know of some service I am not aware, all the ones I have seen in Texas protect ONLY against "use of force" incidents, not LEO's ignorance of the law.

Being an LEO is just like any other profession. If you don't take the time and effort to truly "learn your craft" your knowledge of codes and laws will fade very quickly.

[Blue Demon]

I am a member of [a prepaid legal service] and would have called them immediately.

[Moderator edit.]

Unless you know of some service I am not aware, all the ones I have seen in Texas protect ONLY against "use of force" incidents, not LEO's ignorance of the law.

Being an LEO is just like any other profession. If you don't take the time and effort to truly "learn your craft" your knowledge of codes and laws will fade very quickly.

They provide advice and answer any questions 24 hours a day.

[C-dub]

I am a member of [a prepaid legal service] and would have called them immediately.

[Moderator edit.]

Unless you know of some service I am not aware, all the ones I have seen in Texas protect ONLY against "use of force" incidents, not LEO's ignorance of the law.

Being an LEO is just like any other profession. If you don't take the time and effort to truly "learn your craft" your knowledge of codes and laws will fade very quickly.

They provide advice and answer any questions 24 hours a day.

So do we.

[KD5NRH]

The arrest should voided right away, and the officer that arrested him should be required to apologize to the arrestee for not knowing, and more importantly, not asking a supervisor if he was unsure of the law.

Or, here's a fancy idea; I got this weird little box in my pocket that lets me access the vast majority of the writings of mankind, including all Texas statutes. I bet the cop has one too. He could've stopped looking at lolcats long enough to Google it.

I'm rapidly coming to a point in being tired of ignorance of the law only being an excuse for those who are paid to know it, that I'm starting to favor having the officer suffer the maximum penalties his victim would have had to if the law he made up had actually existed.