TexasCHLforum.com

KBCraig wrote:

Odin wrote:

KBCraig wrote:I appreciate the risks that police take, but I do get a bit tired of the worn-out cliche of "just trying to survive my shift".

When it comes to dangerous jobs, police officers don't even make the top 10 list. They might get more physical, and even get injured, but they don't get killed on the job nearly as often as people think. Farmers are more than twice as likely as police officers to die on the job.

That is only because police officers continuously train, are vigilant, and are prepared to counter the danger they face daily. Farmers and convenience store clerks, etc... may have higher rates of death per capita, but if they took the same steps that LEO's take to protect themselves they would be much lower on the list. So it's not that police work isn't more dangerous, it's that the other folks are less cautious and prepared.

Ah, so it's because other professions are stupid, untrained, and ill-prepared. They must deserve it, then.

Those are your words, not mine. I simply pointed out the reasons why more police officers aren't killed - because they are more prepared to deal with the violence that they encounter.

I did not mention the reasons why certain professionas encounter violence more than others, which is a different conversation entirely. The fact is that police are much better prepared to deal with the violence that they encounter, making them more likely to survive a violent encounter that would likely kill someone with less prepartion.

If convenience store/motel clerks/etc. consistently trained in detection, evasion and defense, if they wore body armor, if they openly carried an easily accessable weapon, if they had similarly trained and armed backup available via radio, etc. then I would expect their rate of death per capita to fall dramatically. I'm not suggesting that those professions take those steps, only that it would affect their rate of death in the workplace.

Likewise, since police officers do have all of those advantages when dealing with violence their rate of death is much lower that it would be without their training and preparation.

Statistics can be manipulated to support almost any conclusion. Like most subjects, this one isn't as black and white as it may appear, and you have to consider all of the factors involved to get a true comparison of the dangers of various jobs.

Just because police officers might die on the job at a lower rate per capita does not necessarily prove that they face less danger than a job that has a higher per capita death rate.

Arguing that the only true measure of job dangerousness is the per capita death rate is no different than anti-gun groups arguing that guns are rarely used in self defense because armed citizens rarely shoot and kill their attackers. Studies such as the one by Dr Kleck suggest that armed citizens actually use their weapons to defend against crimes many thousands of times more often than the anti-gun lobby would have you believe, but that in most cases the armed citizen never fires a shot. Does that mean that the armed citizen was never in danger, because he didn't kill the source of potential danger?

KBCraig wrote: Don't forget: I am a LEO. Yes, I want to make it home at the end of my shift. I also realize that my risks are much lower than the night clerk at Motel 6, even though (unlike me), the night clerk isn't initiating confrontational situations with those who seek to do him harm.

If your risk of harm is lower than the Motel 6 clerks in your area then you either work in a very low crime area or your Motel 6 is in a very high crime area. You may be less likely to be harmed due to your training and preparation, but I would think that your risk of encountering danger is probably higher than the average motel clerk. Maybe not, I don't know your assignment, but in general this would seem to be the case.

KBCraig wrote: If some thug seeks to do me harm, it's because I've at least intruded on his life in some way, and if I'm more cautious and prepared than cab drivers and convenience store clerks, it's because my job description involves whacking hornet's nests, not knowing which one of them contains live hornets.

I agree, and that is a different subject.

KBCraig wrote:I appreciate the risks that police take, but I do get a bit tired of the worn-out cliche of "just trying to survive my shift".

When it comes to dangerous jobs, police officers don't even make the top 10 list. They might get more physical, and even get injured, but they don't get killed on the job nearly as often as people think. Farmers are more than twice as likely as police officers to die on the job.

That is only because police officers continuously train, are vigilant, and are prepared to counter the danger they face daily. Farmers and convenience store clerks, etc... may have higher rates of death per capita, but if they took the same steps that LEO's take to protect themselves they would be much lower on the list. So it's not that police work isn't more dangerous, it's that the other folks are less cautious and prepared.

flintknapper wrote:AFJailor wrote:

1.Overly aggressive behavior

2.If the CHL appears to be under the influence of drugs/alchohol

3.Also, a lot of things that an LEO does are based off of personal experience and intuition, so if you start acting overly nervous, or your behavior is such that it gives the LEO reason to believe you could become aggresive, then I believe disarming would be justifiable.

Those are just off the top of my head, I am sure there are plenty more.

Number three is somewhat subjective, but I fully recognize the value of "street smarts".

95% of police work is somewhat subjective. Whether or not to arrest someone is often subjective (except in certain cases). Taking someone's freedom by arresting them is much more serious than temporarily disarming someone on a traffic stop. If you seek a world without subjective law enforcement you're either going to have anarchy or a police state. Neither way is better than our current system in my opinion.

anygunanywhere wrote:

Odin wrote:In Texas the police can arrest you for any minor traffic violation except speeding or violation of the open container law. That includes not wearing a seat belt, burned out tail light, etc...

Just because it is so does not make it right.

Anygun

Very seldom is a person arrested for a class C misdemeanor or traffic offense, but it's a possibility. A traffic violation is a crime in Texas. People are subject to be taken before a magistrate when they commit crimes.

The police don't write legislation. If the citizens don't like the laws the citizens have the authority to change the laws through the established legislative process. I don't agree with many of our laws, but that doesn't mean I won't follow them.

In Texas the police can arrest you for any minor traffic violation except speeding or violation of the open container law. That includes not wearing a seat belt, burned out tail light, etc...

dihappy wrote:

Odin wrote:

Liberty wrote:
When you are required to take a physical agility test, a written examination, a preliminary interview with an investigator, fill out a personal history packet that is over 50 pages of detailed personal info including all financial info/school history/address history/driving record/etc., have your references, neighbors, spouse and relatives (and others) interviewed by investigators, be subject to a drug screening, be orally interviewed/interrogated by a panel of veteran officers, submit to a medical examination, be polygraphed about everything in your life, endure many hours and literally thousands of questions of psychological evaluation, be interviewed by a psychologist, and pass an interview with the chief of police...all so that you can then take 775 classroom hours of instruction in a police academy and then take and pass the state TCLEOSE examination...all before being issued a license to carry a handgun.

When you have done all of that then you can say that your background was the same as the background for a LEO. The entire process for a LEO from the time they apply to the time they are able to carry a weapon will typically take about a year. It's not quite the same as a CHL background check.

All that and youd expect all cops to be cream of the crop. Sadly they are still capable of abusing their power and even commiting murder.

Most are. Some aren't, but it's a tiny fraction of a percentage. Some officers started out good and changed, some slipped through the process, some departments have more lax standards, and an awful lot of the bad cops you see are probably the result of the recent (since the 80's) trend in law enforcement to hire "diversity" at all costs. Many standards have been lowered and many exceptions to the rules have been made in the name of political correctness, and we all pay for that. Further, as the younger generation takes more positions of power in society the rules change and standards are relaxed because the Gen X and later folks think the old standards were too strict and served no purpose. Look for increasing "bad cop" incidents as police departments across the nation change their standards and practices to hire a politically correct workforce of ex-criminals and drug users. And some cops were just plain bad people before they became a cop, but like i said that's such a tiny percentage.

dihappy wrote: I guess reason enough to suspect the lowly CHL'er of posing a threat to a cop.

I never suggested that.

Liberty wrote:We don't ask the LEO to disarm himself when he comes in contact with with us. We have no reason to believe that they are any less likely to shoot us than we CHL holders are to shoot them. Read the paper, LEOs becoming unnecessarily violent is is almost a daily event. Our background Investigation is the same as theirs.

First, I want to say that I don't think it is necessary to disarm most CHL holders and I believe that it's the exceptionm, not the rule. But my comment is on the highlighted quote above.

A CHL holder's "background investigation" is nowhere similar to a LEO background investigation. In fact, CHL holders aren't subject to any real background "investigation", it's more like a quick check to make sure the applicant isn't ineligible for some obvious reason. I'm not suggesting that the CHL background needs to be different, only that it is different from a LEO background.

When you are required to take a physical agility test, a written examination, a preliminary interview with an investigator, fill out a personal history packet that is over 50 pages of detailed personal info including all financial info/school history/address history/driving record/etc., have your references, neighbors, spouse and relatives (and others) interviewed by investigators, be subject to a drug screening, be orally interviewed/interrogated by a panel of veteran officers, submit to a medical examination, be polygraphed about everything in your life, endure many hours and literally thousands of questions of psychological evaluation, be interviewed by a psychologist, and pass an interview with the chief of police...all so that you can then take 775 classroom hours of instruction in a police academy and then take and pass the state TCLEOSE examination...all before being issued a license to carry a handgun.

When you have done all of that then you can say that your background was the same as the background for a LEO. The entire process for a LEO from the time they apply to the time they are able to carry a weapon will typically take about a year. It's not quite the same as a CHL background check.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I think part of the confusion on this issue is the lack of a statutory definition of "disarm a license holder" as found in Tex. Gov't Code §411.207(a). The statute doesn't say an officer can take a handgun off a CHL's hip or out of her purse, it authorizes disarming the CHL. Since there is no definition, we have to look at case law to see the scope of an officer's authority to search a vehicle for weapons. An officer can search a driver's car for weapons without a warrant or consent, as long as it is for the officer's safety. I'm embarrassed but I can't recall the style of the U.S. Supreme Court case on this issue. It's not Terry, as that deals with pat-downs of suspicious persons. Oh well, another "Sometimers" moment. I know the issue about stepping out of the car and locking the door, but I'm not sure if there is any case law on point.

Chas.

Ordering the driver out of the vehicle...

Pennsylvania v. Mimms

Maryland v. Wilson


Ordering occupants to remain in vehicle with hands in view...

US v. Moorfield


Order occupant who was ordered out of vehicle to return to vehicle...

US v. Williams


Searching the vehicle without a warrant...

Carroll v. United States

Michigan v. Long

KBCraig wrote:

Odin wrote:An officer is permitted to disarm a CHL holder while on a stop for the safety of the officer,

The law clearly says that an officer may only disarm a CHL holder when he reasonably believes doing so is necessary for the safety of himself, the CHL, or a third party. (Or, as of 9/1/07, when entering a secure area where proper signs are posted and secure storage is provided for the handgun.)

Every time an officer disarms a CHL as a matter of law, he exceeds his legal authority.

Obviously, when I say "for the safety of the officer" I mean if the officer belives it may be reasonably necessary for his safety. My opinion is that it is rarely necessary, but I'm not the one who makes that decision, it's up to each individual officer.

My point really was that regardless of anyone's opinion on the officer's legal authority that the officer can do as he chooses and the CHL holder is best served by complying and taking the case to court if he feels that the officer was wrong.

If the CHL holder is not wearing the weapon they could simply not advise the officer that they are armed and consider themselves to be carrying under the "travelling" statute. But that could also lead to them being a test case for the distinction between CHL carry and travel carry.

For the sake of your Internet debate - the officer can do whatever he wants to do. Depending on your reaction to his actions, you might (a) be disarmed for the duration of the stop, (b) be arrested or (c) be shot. If you feel that your temporary disarming was unlawful, you have the option of taking your case to the courts.

An officer is permitted to disarm a CHL holder while on a stop for the safety of the officer, and if you are not taken into physical custody then the officer would be able to remove the firearm from the area that is immediately accessable to you when in the driver's seat.

My opinion is that if you are in possession of a handgun that is not on your person that the best options is to tell you to leave the weapon where it is, and depending on the situation possibly have you exit the vehicle while leaving the weapon in the vehicle. Taking possession of the weapon means that 2 people will have to handle the weapon in the course of the stop which seems unnecessary to me and creates more potential for problems than leaving the weapon in the vehicle. But not everyone shares that opinion.