TexasCHLforum.com

howdy wrote:Man, we are totally off subject...
My 1980 Oxford American Dictionary simply state "a person not serving in the armed forces"
My 1990 World Book Dictionary says the same thing but has this caveat " Policeman and sometimes firemen and other government officials are distinguished from civilians, in additions to members of the Army, Navy and Air Force and often members of the clergy."

Oh well, times change. Maybe when you take the oath to "support and defend the Constitution", you cease being a civilian. I knew I should not discard those old dictionaries. :

nightmare69 wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Lol at duty holsters with snaps!

Is that what the old guys carried their revolvers in?

They are a different breed.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Lol at duty holsters with snaps!

Are they dating themselves a bit?

handog wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:Well put Steve Rothstein.

Outstanding.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

mojo wrote:Hyperbole aside, what I do think people are saying it is normal and reasonable for a citizen that is being stopped for a mere traffic violation to feel uncomfortable if the cop gets excited and anxious and then prepares their weapon to be drawn just because someone hands them a chl when ID is requested.

It is unreasonable to expect someone not to react or have thoughts based upon the demeanor and actions of another in a similar situation. If a citizen being stopped it is acting nervous and evasive, the officer will pick up on that and respond accordingly. If the cop is acting nervous and excited, think Barney Fife, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the citizen to view that as an unpleasant encounter. Hence the title of this thread.

I just want to get the point across that an officer is not being "aggressive," they are not trying to "scare and intimidate" you, nor are they committing any crime or doing wrong by touching their gun.

mojo84 wrote:The scenario presented is that the officer reacted to the OP's chl the way she did. There are many other scenarios where that reaction would be considered appropriate.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

handog wrote:Reaching for and releasing the retention on the pistol was a hostile act meant to intimidate. Such an action could only be justified if the LEO was in fear for her life or bodily injury. To require a CHL to present his license upon a traffic stop then interpret that as a threat is absurd.

I must say that, IN MY OPINION, you are wrong. Reach for and releasing the retention is not a hostile act "meant to intimidate". An officer has the right to have their hand on their gun when interacting at a traffic stop. Many well trained and seasoned officers have their level three and two retentions undone upon approach, so the only retention keeping them from drawing is the friction element of their holster. I know many officers whom on traffic stops with any amount of suspicion, remove their weapon from its restraints, and move it to where it cannot be seen by the individual as to not raise alarm or suspicion. Heck, watch cops and you'll see i every once in a while too!

I completely agree with you, on the fact that it was odd of the officer to interpret the chl being given as possible hostility. If she returned to her car to run your DL, and a flag popped up that you have a chl, that would be alarming. I generally see chl holders as the good guys/gals without a uniform, unless they give me a reason to see otherwise. They light in which this story was cast, shows an officer acting unprofessionally in the way she postured, reacted, and communicated with the complainant. There's much better ways to handle this, while being polite and curious.


In other words, the green was showing, no harm no foul, but hopefully lessons were leaned. As for the OP, good job, I would've complimented you for your show of respect and doing the right thing.