TexasCHLforum.com

talltex wrote:

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.

Once more...You state as fact, your opinion. You cannot know someone else's thoughts or motives. In this case, in my opinion, it was due to lack of experience, but given the sequence of events, I think she overreacted. I also believe that it isn't always unintentional...there are some officers that do act overtly aggressive and do so with the intention of intimidating others and abuse their authority. I saw it happen a number of times on routine stops, with two officers I worked with back in the mid 70's.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Yea I hear you on that. Agreed on all points.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I meant more, why is it ok that a citizen has to feel threatened for no good reason? I take issue more with that philosophical view than with the cop's actions in the OP. I'm not threatened if an officer walks up with his hand on his sidearm-I doubt I'd even be able to see it, but I understand being wary. I am concerned with the view though, that citizens feeling threatened - for no justifiable reason - is ok.

I'll note, again my intereactions with police in the last two decades have been minimal, but at no time did I feel threatened in any manner or that the police were acting in any matter except absolute professionalism.

mojo wrote:I don't think I, nor anyone else, is saying it's ok to mess with your gun, dig in your pockets or shoot a cop because the cop makes someone feel uncomfortable.

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.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:
Like I said, both ways? If action is justified by "feelings" alone, maybe the OP felt threatened by the nervous cop's actions of preparing her weapon to be drawn. If there was any other indicator that the OP may have been a danger in addition to having a chl, I could understand why the cop was so nervous and extra causious. Based on the op, I don't think the level of nervousness was warranted.

OK he felt threatened. So?

Why is that ok?

handog wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

C-dub wrote:

handog wrote:

C-dub wrote:This thread has taken an interesting turn. Unsnapping or releasing one or two retention devices is not an aggressive act, but does it rise to the level of the threat of deadly force? I see officers rest their hand on the grip of their gun often. Most of the time it is just a place to rest their hand. However, in an instant such as the OP described, that's not the case. There seems to be a fine line here and I'm not sure when or why it is okay for a LEO to cross over it, while I am not.

If the OP reached for his gun and released its retention do you think the LEO would have considered it an act of aggression ?

Getting on a little later tonight.

In order for the OP or anyone's action of releasing retention and reaching for their gun to have the same effect as the officer's, wouldn't it have to be intentionally unconcealed? Otherwise, if retention was released and your hand was on your gun and it remained concealed the officer would never know. The officer doesn't have that ability since their sidearm is out there for all to see.

If the CHL holder makes ANY move toward their gun (such as releasing retention) during a traffic stop, then it should (rightfully) be considered by a LEO to be an aggressive maneuver.

If it's aggressive when the CHL holder does it, then it's also aggressive when the LEO does it.

This is particularly true in the situation described in the OP in which the officer went from a "friendly and non confrontational manner" to a situation where the officer "reacted badly ... placed her left hand on her pistol, removed the retention, stepped back behind me, and demanded in a shrill voice "ARE YOU ARMED!" ... (snip) ... She asked "WHERE IS IT!"

This isn't LEO-bashing, rather it's normalizing the behavior so that it is interpreted the same way for both individuals. Justifying the action as different (by any means) is an unfair (and likely biased) assessment.

Well put.

handog wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:well hopefully people don't gun down cops with a provocation either.

Their not getting gunned down any more than civilians. Their homicide rate is just slightly higher. It's a huge assumption that they are being picked off.

VMI77 wrote:

handog wrote:

C-dub wrote:This thread has taken an interesting turn. Unsnapping or releasing one or two retention devices is not an aggressive act, but does it rise to the level of the threat of deadly force? I see officers rest their hand on the grip of their gun often. Most of the time it is just a place to rest their hand. However, in an instant such as the OP described, that's not the case. There seems to be a fine line here and I'm not sure when or why it is okay for a LEO to cross over it, while I am not.

If the OP reached for his gun and released its retention do you think the LEO would have considered it an act of aggression ?

I don't consider unsnapping or releasing a retention device to be an aggressive act. I consider it a cautious act and I've done it myself in questionable situations.....if I don't need the gun, great, if I do, one less barrier to the draw. I don't think you can equate the two reactions though....I assume the LEO is being cautious and doesn't intend to shoot me, however, what motive would I have as a CHL to unsnap in the face of a LEO other than to signal that I am considering the use of my weapon? I think it would be rightly perceived as an escalation and a threatening move, since you're much less likely to be shot by an officer for no reason than an officer might be shot by a stranger and potential criminal during a traffic stop.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:well hopefully people don't gun down cops with a provocation either.

handog wrote:

She would've done it perfect if the OP would've never been able to notice her grip her handgun.

I guess it depends on what kind of country you want to live in. Reaching for and unbuckling your gun, which can only suggest I'm preparing to shoot you if necessary during a routine traffic stop is not what I think the founding fathers had in mind. I don't care if it was part of training or "every one does it."

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote: Sure. And tone and body language is so subjective and when you are there you can be so positive but can't necessarily say why you know something. I just figure, by the description given, that at worst the cop was a bit overcautious for the OP taste. There doesn't seem to be any real activity that anyone could complain about except she had her hand near or on her gun which may just be how she was trained. Being so new she may still follow all her academy training to the letter. I guess my point being if that is something to complain about then why would people listen when something wrong does happen.

Shouldn't this go both ways? I think when officers see someone they stop acting overly nervous, it brings suspicion and doubt into their minds. When a cop is acting overly nervous, it should be concerning to the person with whom they are dealing. It doesn't appear based on the post, the OP did anything to justify a higher level of alertness or caution than normally would be justified on a traffic stop of a citizen.

Cops should always be alert, attentive, cautious and aware when stopping individuals. Preparing to draw their weapon just because someone hands them their ID's when asked, doesn't seem to warranted.

You're trying to take my statement somewhere it was never meant to go. I was referring to the fact that even using colorful, and a bit hyperbolic, language it's hard to point to anything the officer did that is actually, well, wrong. I wouldn't want to dismiss the OP's concerns because sometimes you have to be there and I wasn't but we are mainly talking about the was she made him "feel" and not what she actually did. For all I know she was real concerned but so what. Her actions were not in and of themselves wrong so now we have people complaining because the cops don't treat CHL's like some sort of police reserves like some on here think they are? Even taking the OP's statement at face value it seems to me there is just so much more to worry about that a cop who dislikes or is concerned about CHLs but doesn't do anything but act cautiously when encountering one.

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote: Sure. And tone and body language is so subjective and when you are there you can be so positive but can't necessarily say why you know something. I just figure, by the description given, that at worst the cop was a bit overcautious for the OP taste. There doesn't seem to be any real activity that anyone could complain about except she had her hand near or on her gun which may just be how she was trained. Being so new she may still follow all her academy training to the letter. I guess my point being if that is something to complain about then why would people listen when something wrong does happen.

Shouldn't this go both ways? I think when officers see someone they stop acting overly nervous, it brings suspicion and doubt into their minds. When a cop is acting overly nervous, it should be concerning to the person with whom they are dealing. It doesn't appear based on the post, the OP did anything to justify a higher level of alertness or caution than normally would be justified on a traffic stop of a citizen.

Cops should always be alert, attentive, cautious and aware when stopping individuals. Preparing to draw their weapon just because someone hands them their ID's when asked, doesn't seem to warranted.

handog wrote:

C-dub wrote:This thread has taken an interesting turn. Unsnapping or releasing one or two retention devices is not an aggressive act, but does it rise to the level of the threat of deadly force? I see officers rest their hand on the grip of their gun often. Most of the time it is just a place to rest their hand. However, in an instant such as the OP described, that's not the case. There seems to be a fine line here and I'm not sure when or why it is okay for a LEO to cross over it, while I am not.

If the OP reached for his gun and released its retention do you think the LEO would have considered it an act of aggression ?

victory wrote:

C-dub wrote: There seems to be a fine line here and I'm not sure when or why it is okay for a LEO to cross over it, while I am not.

I think I know the answer but don't want to be accused of bashing.

talltex wrote:

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.

there...I fixed it for you. Both statements are matters of opinion, not fact, and as such, are subject to interpretation. What the officer has the right to do, or what many well trained and seasoned officers might do, doesn't mean it cannot be viewed by someone else as unecessarily aggressive.