TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84

A-R wrote:
As for Chief Acevedo, he's a worthless Kalifornia commie. Period.

Now there's something we can all agree on. Anyone want to debate this point?

mojo84

Cops love it when people play poker with them and call their bluff.

Citizens obeying the law shouldn't be put in that position in the first place.

mojo84

A-R wrote:Mojo84,

Your comparison (gun vs car) on the surface seems apples-to-apples, but we all know it's not. Cars and DLs have become a normal part of society. So nobody pays it no mind. Open carry handguns are not yet "normal" in Texas and won't be for a while. Perhaps when the first DLs were issued, or the first horseless buggies appeared in public, police then responded to numerous concerns.

That said, there are also subtle changes in the wording a caller uses that will elevate the response above "ma'am, open carry of handguns is legal now." The SCOTUS link refered to what is generically termed a "reckless driver" meaning someone driving erratically or dangerously - could be DWI, could be a Fast-n-Furious wannabe, could just be a "jerk" late for work, or could be someone driving in a reasonable manner that the caller "perceives" to be reckless. Point is someone called 911 to report reckless driving.

Now, to put that in a gun context, certainly if the call is literally just "a man has a holstered pistol at the Wal Mart" then eventually those calls should be explained by dispatch and not put out for patrol response. But realistically all a 911 caller really has to do to get an available patrol unit in route is articulate some perceived danger. Same as with a reckless driver. The reality or reasonableness of the actual danger posed is WHY police are sent - it's what they are there to determine. Making that determination is not the duty of the caller nor dispatcher.

See, you keep adding that the caller says there is reason and officer is needed other than just someone driving or wearing a holstered gun. I used the analogy of me calling 911 and reporting A-R is driving. I didn't say driving erratically or recklessly. I am willing to see your point as stated above. You seem to be unwilling to see my point that just driving or wearing a gun is not sufficient reason to make contact even if someone calls. I also conceded there will an adjustment period till society becomes more used to seeing open carried guns in public.

Let's not get so caught up on our own arguments that we can't see it from the other's point of view and want to just win the debate. We both have valid points from two different perspectives. Mine from a law abiding citizen that is doing nothing wrong and you from the perspective of a cop or cop's family that wants to protect the citizenry and avoid liability.

Again, if the cop is dispatched and he observes the citizen doing nothing wrong before he makes contact and isn't acting suspicious, he can just as easily notify dispatch there is nothing going on, contact not needed and back in service. If the caller said the carrier was doing something wrong or acting suspicious, by all means the cop should make contact. Works the same way with driving.

mojo84

A-R wrote:
mojo84 wrote:A-R, I understand where you are coming from. I also said earlier I will cooperate and be respectful.

However, to make a point on principle. How would it be handled if I called 911 to report I saw A-R driving a vehicle and I'm scared? Will the cop show up to check your license? What happens if not and you later run over someone?

It's going to take an adjustment period for all involved. I still maintain it comes down to common sense, attitude and training.

Maybe the chl badge idea wasn't so ludicrous after all.

RE: SCOTUS decision on traffic stop initiated solely on matching description from 911 call.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13 ... 0_3fb4.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Back to guns, like you said there's going to be an adjustment period. Mutual understanding and cooperation during that adjustment period will help, not hinder, the effective implementation of open carry. Hostility toward perceived police "harassment" will do the opposite.

Thanks for the SCOTUS ruling. I did not read it all as it didn't seem to pertain to what we are duscussing. The case involved someone calling and reporting someone possibly driving under the influence. That's completely different than someone calling to report someone simply driving a vehicle or simply open carrying a gun.

The point and principle are the same even though one involved a gun and the other a car.

mojo84

A-R, I understand where you are coming from. I also said earlier I will cooperate and be respectful.

However, to make a point on principle. How would it be handled if I called 911 to report I saw A-R driving a vehicle and I'm scared? Will the cop show up to check your license? What happens if not and you later run over someone?

It's going to take an adjustment period for all involved. I still maintain it comes down to common sense, attitude and training.

Maybe the chl badge idea wasn't so ludicrous after all.

mojo84

First off, dispatchers do have the authority to not send an officer in response to a call for service. Try to get a cop out to investigate a minor auto accident when the cars are drivable and no one is injured in some of our larger cities. Same goes for auto break ins and personal property theft. The dispatchers qualify the calls and tell the people to call in a report or to come to the police station to file a report.

Second, If they do send an officer, the officer can show up and observe the person that is open carrying to see if they are acting suspicious or breaking the law before they make contact. If they aren't, they can note it and move on without bothering the law abiding citizen.

It all comes down to training, common sense and attitude of the people involved.

mojo84

carlson1 wrote:
oljames3 wrote:
We will have to agree to disagree. My pastor at First Baptist in Elgin simply asks that CHLers consider how distracting open carry could be during worship services. No signs, no orders (as if one could give orders to Baptists). I'll continue to cover in the sanctuary after 1 JAN 16, but I don't feel OC would be distracting in other parts of the church.
I understand. As a Baptist Pastor this is not even open for debate with me. It is like being naked. I don't mind it I am just not going to be naked in public.

We thank you for this.

mojo84

nightmare69 wrote:As a LEO, I'm not looking forward to the influx of calls of someone OC a firearm. Unfortunately, we have to go and check out all calls no matter how silly. Hopefully it won't last long as I would rather spend my time answering legit calls.

I think the call takers can qualify the call better than just passing it in to dispatch to have an office sent. If they ask the caller if the person is doing anything threatening or suspicious with the gun or is the person holding the gun in his hand or is it in s holster. What exactly is the person doing? Oh, he's pushing a shopping cart with groceries in it, that's not illegal ma'am. We will not be sending an officer out. If he puts on a mask, pulls his gun out and demands the cashier give him the money, call us back.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 8 matches

Re: Open Carry impact

Re: Open Carry impact

Re: Open Carry impact

Re: Open Carry impact

Re: Open Carry impact

Re: Open Carry impact

Re: Open Carry impact

Re: Open Carry impact