TexasCHLforum.com

Here’s another way to possibly look at the discussion…

There are two “rights� competing in this case, the right of the CHL to be armed and the right of the LEO to secure his/her safety.

If there were not competing rights, then there would be no issue.

But since there are competing rights, then some methodology needs to be used to determine which right would take priority.

If there is evidence showing CHL’s have shot, or attempted to shoot police officers in statistically significant numbers during traffic stops, then to me that would be justification since I don’t believe there’s data showing the CHL is at appreciable risk from the officer.

But I haven’t been able to find cases to substantiate that scenario. In the absence of reasonable risk to the officer, the rights of a citizen should never be taken away or tampered with. In the case of a tie, the citizens rights should prevail over the agent of the state.

The founding fathers were all about individual rights and the risks of giving authority to a central power. They were very careful to try and limit the powers of the state and their agents (such as LEO).

Arbitrarily erring on the side of the states agent over that of the citizen, when there is no compelling reason, is wrong and counter to the very foundation of our constitution. A decision by an agency to disarm CHL's just because "it's possible they could represent a risk", in other words policy, would fall into this category for me. So would an officer doing the same just because he can.

I don’t think there was any intent to belittle LEO deaths in the line of duty. Every time an Officer dies in the line of duty, that’s a loss to society and a tragedy to his/her family, co-workers, and friends.

But the discussion was targeted to the often used “I want to go home at the end of my shift� comment. Of course this is a reasonable sentiment. I mean how many people don’t want to be alive at the end of their work day.

According to The US Department of Labor, in 2006 (I couldn’t find statistics for 07), 110 “Police� died on the job.

61 were due to “Transportation Incidents� and 47 were due to “Assaults and Violent Acts�

In the Protective Services category, they had the highest rate of fatalities for violent acts, followed by Correctional Officers (5) and Bailiffs (5).

Retail sales workers had 72 due to violent acts. Their bosses (First Line Managers) had 88.

For all the categories listed, there were 754 deaths due to violent acts, so police officers certainly had a high percentage, although not a majority.

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program, there were 561,844 LEO employees in the US in 2005 (most current data on the site). This includes civilian employees in the number.

Now I know I’m mixing years, but I suspect the numbers do not move appreciably from year to year. So that would make the risk of being killed by violent act on the job for the officers somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 in 12,000. The risk for the officer of dying in a “Transportation Incident� is roughly 1 in 9,200.

The reality is, by far the majority of officers “go home at the end of their shift� each day whether they disarm CHL’s or not.

The flip side to that coin is how many have ended up dead because they did not disarm a CHL? During my search, I couldn’t find any cases…but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. But I suspect the number is extremely small compared to how many times LEO come in contact with CHL’s.

To me the bottom-line is if an officer has cause to believe a particular CHL represents a risk due to what he/she sees at the time, then they should disarm the individual. But a general practice of disarmament for the officer’s safety does not appear to have any substantive data to back it up.

I think a little bit of mutual respect is the best way to handle the situation.

Geopagus wrote:
Your kind words are very appreciated flintknapper. There are already enough people in society who dislike LEO's with a passion. I see it, hear it, and feel it everyday; I understand it because of the small percentage in Law Enforcement who do the profession an injustice, but also feel short changed for those of us who are trying to do our best.

Geopagus:

I believe the issue for LEO’s is basically the same as it is for many public service groups (EMT’s, doctors, lawyers, military, etc.). The window into your organization for the majority of the public is through the mass-media, and they don’t make money on good news. They make money on uncovering the “bad side�, not reporting the “good side�.

The net result is the majority of the public’s view on LEO is drawn from very negative stories based on a few bad apples, and as a result, LEO’s can find themselves in the “un-trusted� category.

Discussions between LEO and non-LEO then almost always degrade into the us-vs-them tirade:

“I just want to go home at the end of the shift� vs “You knew the risks when you took the job�

“Civilians should show us respect� vs “LEO should show us respect�

“Not all LEO’s are bad� vs “Not all LEO’s are good�

It’s a no-win situation, and that won’t change anytime soon unless both sides are willing to take a step forward and give the other side some credit…but figure the odds on that happening