TexasCHLforum.com

puma guy wrote:

alexrex20 wrote:

gigag04 wrote:This unfortunately happens a good bit...I'm sure the spin will come for a cover up...but I regularly have a messed up video system.

of course a cop would say that.

We should all be respectful here. JMHO

sjfcontrol wrote:

texxas guy wrote:UPDATE

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46726665/ns ... -shooting/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
........got something else up their sleeve legalwise?

Sounds like they just gave up.

Until the missing video is found...if ever.

seniorshooteress wrote:

HighHandicap wrote:Sadly, Sheriff Gillespie won re-election (65% vs 35%). Apparently the people of Clark County are perfectly happy with the high rate of officer involved shootings.

unbelievable! There is something terribly wrong with the people who voted him back in.

They voted Dirty Harry back in too. So, no surprise about voting the Sheriff back in.

WildBill wrote:

philip964 wrote:Latest news report with Erik Scott's attorney.

http://www.8newsnow.com/Global/category ... start=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It puzzles me is that only one gun was mentioned, which Erik Scott carried IWB. Previous versions of the story report two handguns.

Also, I am wondering about the so-called "irratic behavior" of Erik Scott. It doesn't see to be on the 911 call and they have no witnesses that reported any behavior out of the ordinary. Where and when did this information appear?

I listened to the complete LV police scanner tape last night. There was voice traffic by some officer reporting that the manager (or management type person) said that Scott was behaving erratically. There was also a report on the tape that some management type in the store was on a land-line with the police describing where Scott was, and descriptions of him and his girlfriend. Voice traffic also states several time he had a 413 (firearm) tucked in the back of his pants.

What shocks me no end is how casually the ambulance was summoned. I did not time how long it was between "shots fired" and the ambulance showed up...but it was w-a-a-y too long. This in spite of the fact that the police had requested a medical unit to be on standby either across the street or within a block of Costco.

Then there is the shocking report from the scene that the subject is in custody! Again this was over 5 minutes after "shots fired".

You have to take the time to listen to the whole thing.

mctowalot wrote:IMHO, a holster shirt would be more comfortable than the groin holster. Ouch!

I have tried, not a holster shirt, but a chest harness holster that put the XD40 under my left arm pit. Since I'm on the slim side and a smaller framed guy (5'10", 160#), the butt tended to stick out a little no matter what I did. I suspect a holster shirt would also. But larger framed men likely do quite well with it, I suppose.

However, I do not find the smartcarry all that uncomfy...shifted to the left (like Beiruty says) so the end of the butt is even with the zipper it's not in the way of anything important and I can use a urinal just fine. It's just not as comfy or accessible as my IWB.

Beiruty, were you talking about drawing the gun through your zipper? Must be a small gun.

As I was stepping into my SmartCarry groin holster today to go to work, the thought came to me that a major part of what we've been discussing on this thread is fear of our gun being exposed. Well, a groin holster like the SmartCarry goes a long way to keeping what needs to be concealed...concealed.

I much prefer to use my IWB holster. I use it whenever I'm not going to the office. It's easier to get to the gun and more comfortable. But I'm much more conscious of risk of exposure with the IWB.

I absolutely cannot risk exposure at the office. It's not because it's against the rules. It's because I don't want the issue to come up at all. So I put up with the slight discomfort of having my XD40 stuck down in the front of my pants. But it hides the gun so well, no one will ever ask that infamous question, "Is that a gun in your pocket.

mgood wrote:

baldeagle wrote: . . . who among us can guarantee that we will never be outed no matter how hard we work to prevent it? Who can guarantee that, if you are asked to leave and you immediately comply, that the police won't still be called and the situation won't still escalte as it did in Erik's case? Who can guarantee that, even if you do everything the police ask of you, an office with a different point of view won't interpret your actions as a threat and fire?

There are no guarantees. Who can guarantee that you won't be run over by a car, struck by lightening[sic], or bit by a rattlesnake? I think the odds of those are much greater than the things you're concerned about. Carrying a weapon reduces some dangers while increasing others. I firmly believe that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, by far. In the end of course, you have to make your own decisions, but I really think you're letting a single, freak incident stir you up more than the situation warrants. I would think that shopping at Costco while carrying concealed is still much safer than driving.
Sorry, I don't mean to make light of your concerns. I'm just trying to put them in perspective.

I can take reasonable precautions (and do) for all three of those...run over by a car, struck by lightning, and the rattlesnake...to lower the odds that it will ever happen to me. Not guarantee, but lower the odds. That's why we're discussing/disputing/sharing (not to mention grieving about it) here...so we can all lower the odds of a fatal encounter with LE in a case like this one. That's why we spend so much time (some of us anyway ) here and elsewhere. So I will be better prepared for such a scenario and continue to carry responsibly everywhere I am allowed.

Edit: Correct spelling of "fire from the sky". Thank you Jim.