TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote:Yep...as a matter of fact I was. I understand that you are just a bit predisposed in your view points so I will ignore the hyperbole indictment.

Were you given a speedy and fair trial? Were allowed to confront your accusers? Were you held with reasonable bail?

Everybody is predisposed to their own viewpoint...hence the fact that it is THEIRS. And by saying in a public forum that you will ignore something, you are not ingnoring it...I can glean from your writing that you dislike/distrust the police. This is well within your rights. I also read much of what you say to condemn many of their lawful actions. If I am misinterpreting something please advise...I'd rather not be at odds with you, but some of the opinions you offer make it difficult at best to not disagree. I take issue when you comment on things which I feel you don't know. You accuse the unknown officer of making this arrest solely to advance his career. A UCW arrest does not make you a big-time officer....this line of reasoning is simply taking potshots at someone that knows more of the story than you do, and is not here to defend themselves.

The less informed may read your comments regarding police and actually believe them...thus making my job all the more difficult. I will defend your right to post your opinion, but please allow others to challenge it with factual information.

Due to the nature of this obviously heated topic, this thread or whole topic may be deleted/locked, but I feel like it is a good discussion to have. I think there are many myths and misunderstandings between LEOs and average citizens. The more dialogue we can have and gain a better understanding of where each other come from, the better IMO.

03Lightningrocks wrote:Maybe we should give handdog the benefit of the doubt folks....

... it really is baloney acting as if the guy who got treated like he lives in Nazi Germany deserved to get rousted by an over zealous cop looking to earn brownie points for advancement.

I have been arrested before and let me tell ya something. Once cops make the commitment, they won't back off no matter how ignorant they are about to look. Those cops would have looked like the keystone gang that they are if after calling in half the darned force they said "oops my bad" and let handdog walk. Give him a break. Those cops should have never made the arrest.

Maybe we should give the whole thing a break....the complaints against the officers haven't gone anywhere - nobody with knowledge of the full situation has decided that a violation against the rights of another has actually taken place. The judge felt like the incident was accidental - that is his decision. Courts decide intentions...I'm not inclined to buy into a line of threads where a significant majority of someone's posts are centered around an incident such as this. Something still doesn't add up to me.

I'm curious if YOU (lightning) feel like you were arrested in error...or else why mention it? Furthermore, I think comparing this to Nazi Germany is hyperbole at it's worst...

I for one am thankful that these types of threads have received some scrutiny from even those outside the LE field. I'm glad that nobody gets a free pass at ripping into an organization or entity without being examined and challenged. This goes for actions of LEOs as well as civilians IMO.

We can combine it with the TXCHLF car meet that I haven't planned out yet.

suthdj wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

suthdj wrote:To me the police should never put the life of a citizen in a threatening situation such as handog described for their own safety, sorry if that make the Leo's here upset but they signed up for the job and knew the dangers involved just like when people join the Military they knew the dangers.

Any response I actually have will be deleted so I'll use pictures.

So by your response it is acceptable to put the life of an innocent person in danger?

Nope. Especially not mine. However...I'll ask...how anyone was put in a dangerous situation?

suthdj wrote:To me the police should never put the life of a citizen in a threatening situation such as handog described for their own safety, sorry if that make the Leo's here upset but they signed up for the job and knew the dangers involved just like when people join the Military they knew the dangers.

Any response I actually have will be deleted so I'll use pictures.

glbedd53 wrote:No I can't. They are my friends. I can tell you that one of them is the number 2 man in the PD in the town I'm talkin about. What's even worse in his case he didn't know until informed him of the change in the law that allows for carry in your vehicle with or without a CHL. The law change was about 2 yrs old at the time. Can you see how someone could get wrongly "cuffed and stuffed"?

How about the others? You can PM them to me if you like.

If this is case we need to get it fixed ASAP. We are kind of veering of course so we can take it to PMs if others feel thats more appropriate.

Right2Carry wrote:

wgoforth wrote:And may I add that there is a difference between good/bad cop vs UNINFORMED cop. I am sure that the local police in my community are good cops, but doesn't mean they are fully aware of current CHL laws. I recently asked an ex-police chief of a nearby community how much firearm training that the police in his town have, he shrugged his shoulders and said NONE. That "the bigger cities have police academies, but all they have to do is qualify on the range."

There is no excuse for any police officer not to be fully informed of the laws concerning CHL. It's not like we just started handing out CHL's.

Firearms training and knowledge of CHL laws are not related.....at all.

I've had plenty of both, but it doesn't mean there is a relationship there.

glbedd53 wrote:I agree with that, not so sure I agree that LEO's are that informed on the law, I know too many that are not

How many exactly do you know? I would like name, rank, and department of these officers you know that are uninformed of CHL laws so we can do something about it. If you can - the date you last interacted with these officers would also be a plus.

A phone number would be helpful.

08thunders wrote:

gigag04 wrote:A charge being dropped because the judge doesn't buy intent is not worth litigation. If this is all you have, and the officer was not malicious - you don't have a case.

If ignorance of the law is no excuse, that should go double for cops.

Was the officer malicious? because that is what you're looking for in a civil suit.

And...disagreement over intent has nothing to do with the officer making an arrest. Judges/juries disagree with officers frequently...which is why there are trials to begin with, and people just take our word at face value.

There are many things in place to protect the ordinary citizen.

A charge being dropped because the judge doesn't buy intent is not worth litigation. If this is all you have, and the officer was not malicious - you don't have a case.

Can we get back on topic?

As long as the op makes a readonable effort to conceal his weapon
he should be fine.

handog wrote: I understand cops are human, not robots and we all make mistakes.

then I question why you would be so quick to sue?

People threaten to sue cops all the time. Seems like a symptom of today's entitlementmentality to me. No offense just my opinion.

Allow me to explain why you guys will often see the reaction from me.

Day in and day out I deal with people falsely accusing myself and other officers around me of misconduct. Our sergeants frequently field complaints from people trying to get officers in trouble. Each complaint is investigated, usually starting with the seargent - by him/her watching the video/audio from the incident. 999 times out of 1000 that is where it stops - as it is unfounded and usually the citizen is the one who is out of line.

I was in a fight this week that screwed up my knee and the whole time we're fighting with the guy (before he got tased) he's screaming he knows his rights and not to touch him...after he assaulted an officer. It was a simple warrant arrest gone wrong - but he thought we were in the wrong. His family will more than likely file a complaint and say that we abused him for no reason. Happens every day.

I will definitely not stand behind an officer that is overstepping the bounds of his authority or has a chip on his shoulder. I got into this line of work because I like people...and we get to work with people...of all walks of life. I can be courteous and professional all day long, while having a plan to inflict serious pain to whomever I meet. Even after this guy was secured I started lightening the mood by talking about his work, and the field he's in etc...it's over...no reason to hold a grudge.

So - if it seems like I am skeptical of every story recounting some story of police mistreatment it is because I deal with these things daily and I know that most of the time, somebody got caught doing something wrong, and wants to somehow take it out on the cop with an IA investigation. I know this isn't always the case, and cops do stupid things too....I won't back a cop doing something illegal against the rights of a citizen. But...when I see a story and something doesn't add up...I am inclined to believe there is information I haven't been given. I see how the news portrays incidents at our department and how little of the truth is actually included. I don't give the public a blank pass to conjure up whatever events they like about LEOs the same way I won't allow LEOs to mistreat people when I'm around. I'm lucky and work for an extremely professional department that values things like honor, ethics, and integrity.

Those that think Cops don't know CHL law are kidding yourselves. Maybe a small minority...but we have continuing ed classes on penal code updates, and we reference the penal code with every arrest we make, and every charge we file.

Here we go....


IBTL

CAs and DAs drop charges all the time - even in cases which are solid and well supported. Maybe they knew somebody, maybe there was one weak link in the case...could be a number of reasons. From what I know - it seems like they refuse cases that are not a slam dunk. Stats matter to everyone...if you rarely loose...you look good.

You can watch someone do something clearly illegal as a LEO, arrest them, book them on the charge, and have the case refused because your camera wasn't point the right way and didn't catch it on video.


You can have evidence thrown out for a case if you can't prove the PC for the traffic stop on video. Doesn't always happen but it's a huge risk.

The less witnesses, and the less video of an incident...the higher likelihood of it getting dropped or plead IMO.

The reason people get off on cases is that Probable Cause (required for arrest) is a lower standard than Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (required for a conviction). The tricky part with slapping a CHL holder with a violation is you have to prove INTENTIONAL failure to conceal. Pretty hard.

I wouldn't worry too much about it IMO. Only one side of the story has been told in that thread. I'm sure most others here will disagree though.