TexasCHLforum.com

bblhd672 wrote:According to the appeal the cab driver told the police he was afraid that he was going to be robbed. Which doesn't make a bit of sense because....he didn't get robbed by the passenger who dropped the gun. Every time I've ridden in a cab after I paid the driver and walked away, the driver never waited around to see if I was coming back to rob him.
Sounds like the cab driver was racially profiling his black customer.

TexasTornado wrote:

Jusme wrote:

LabRat wrote:

TexasTornado wrote:I probably would agree except for the call made to police. ...<snip>>

I'm going to disagree. Calls come into the police all the time. Its the duty of police to gather facts surrounding the event to determine if an officer is required. Not all PD's do this, but in the interest of resources and priority, it's something they should be doing. It also would prevent these types of situations from ever developing.

Additional questions would be "is he pointing the gun at anyone?", "is he threatening anyone?", etc....anything that would indicate a crime is afoot. If we subscribe to the idea that all calls to police should result in an officer response, then any report, regardless of how facetious, would require a police officer to intervene, even when the citizen activities are completely legal. Swatting would take on a whole new meaning and the privacy of the citizens would be eliminated completely. The police could stop you and demand "papers" at any time. That's not the society we envisioned.

I'm not for any criminal escaping punishment for a criminal transaction, but this ruling actually protects law-abiding citizens from governmental overreach. No crime had occurred or suspicion of a crime been witnessed, IMHO. That's what makes the stop a violation of the 4th amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

LabRat

This.

Of course we may not have all of the facts of the case, as to why the police were called, or whether they were led to believe a crime may have been in progress, but this was the debate during the legislative session on open carry here in Texas. The left wanted to give the authority to the police to check for LTC verification, simply if someone was seen carrying. This was echoed by left leaning police chiefs. The legislature said that the police can ask for verification, but not solely based on seeing someone carrying a handgun. There must be other mitigating circumstances. <snip>

If dropping you're weapon doesn't suggest mitigating circumstances I don't know what does. In this case I believe the LEOs acted correctly. At very least this individual was not maintaining control of their weapon, they could have just as easily been intoxicated or otherwise a danger to themselves or others. We aren't talking about a weapon that was in a holster or concealed in this case. If the accused had acted responsibly with the weapon it would probably have never been an issue.

LabRat wrote:

TexasTornado wrote:I probably would agree except for the call made to police. ...<snip>>

I'm going to disagree. Calls come into the police all the time. Its the duty of police to gather facts surrounding the event to determine if an officer is required. Not all PD's do this, but in the interest of resources and priority, it's something they should be doing. It also would prevent these types of situations from ever developing.

Additional questions would be "is he pointing the gun at anyone?", "is he threatening anyone?", etc....anything that would indicate a crime is afoot. If we subscribe to the idea that all calls to police should result in an officer response, then any report, regardless of how facetious, would require a police officer to intervene, even when the citizen activities are completely legal. Swatting would take on a whole new meaning and the privacy of the citizens would be eliminated completely. The police could stop you and demand "papers" at any time. That's not the society we envisioned.

I'm not for any criminal escaping punishment for a criminal transaction, but this ruling actually protects law-abiding citizens from governmental overreach. No crime had occurred or suspicion of a crime been witnessed, IMHO. That's what makes the stop a violation of the 4th amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

LabRat