TexasCHLforum.com

Let's put 20 seconds on the clock and see how many holes I can poke in that idea.
1) The driver had already tried twice to notify the officer before he was told to shut up. How many times does he have to try to be acceptable in your book? If two's not enough, then how many?

The video does not support this as the audio can not be clearly heard when the supporting officer starts to conduct his search of the rear of the vehicle.

2) The officer was clearly trying to dominate the situation. If the driver had tried yet a third time to identify, I have no doubt the cop would've yelled at him again to shut up. Subsequent tries weren't going to change anything.

While I won't argue against the manner in which he "dominated" the situation, I will argue that it IS his duty to dominate the situation. Any weakness displayed during a potentially violent encounter could incite actions that may require the use of force or deadly force. "Dominating" a situation can temper the behavior of those who may be "on the edge" of either compliance or resistance. Compliance is safer for all involved.

3) Do you really think trying to be assertive against this cop would've had a happy ending? It would only enraged him further. Trying to be assertive often comes across as being aggressive, especially with then other person wants to see it that way.

Yes, I do. The statement would have been caught on the dash cam, and heard by both officers.

4) Given this officer's mindset, if the driver had said "I have a gun" in an assertive voice, the cop probably would've taken that as a threat. Again, things get worse from there.

I agree. That is why I believe it is necessary to come up with a plan about such contingencies before they happen. The statement I used in my previous post is far less likely to be construed as a threat, and more as a simple statement of fact in accordance with the law. Used in conjunction with non-threatening body language and behavior, it would be far less likely to instill fear.

5) The video clearly shows that the cop thinks the driver should've notified at the start of the stop. He rants on and on about how the driver had a gun while they were searching his car - well before either officer approached him. By the time the office was at the window, it was too late. Even if the driver had notified right then, the cop still would have blown up on him.

The CHL holder failed to inform the supporting officer. And when the primary officer finally approaches him, he failed yet again, and instead starts talking about being a cabby / looking for a business or whatever.

6

) Ohio law requires the driver to obey all of the officer's command. Once the cop told him to shut up, he had no choice. If he had pressed the issue and notified (for yet a third time), he could've been arrested and charged with disobeying the order to shut up. It's lose-lose.

No, it's not a lose lose. His command to "shut up" is trumped by the CHL's requirement to notify.

7) Finally, since when does someone have to be assertive to exercise their Constitutional rights? I agree it helps, but it's not a mandate. Many people find it difficult to be assertive even in day-to-day, non-life-threatening encounters, and it's even more difficult when dealing with authority figures. It only gets worse when they're faced with an intimidating bully who also happens to be carrying a gun.

People don't have to be assertive at all... if they want their rights trampled on by others.

I agree that we disagree. No worries.

When, pray tell, did he have time?

As soon as the supporting officer stuck his nose in the vehicle.

CHL: "Officer..."
LEO: "Shut up!"
CHL: (ASSERTIVE VOICE) "FOR YOUR SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW, I AM REQUIRED TO INFORM YOU THAT AS A LICENSED CHL HOLDER I CURRENTLY HAVE A FIREARM IN MY POSSESION"


Simple as that, really. Are they going to charge you with using an assertive voice in order to COMPLY WITH THE LAW? If so, I would be willing to bet it wouldn't hold up in a court of law.

While, as I posted before, I do NOT support the unprofessional conduct of the LEO's, I DO believe the CHL holder could have informed them EARLIER than he did. As a juror given the circumstances, however, I would NOT believe he was guilty of failure to notify in accordance with the law.

This video, and similar vids, once again emphasizes the importance of contingency planning and rehearsals prior to a use of force incident, or an LEO contact. Whether it's a simple LEO encounter, reaction to threat without the use of deadly force, or a reaction to threat including the use of deadly force, planning ahead can help a CHL holder develop viable courses of action BEFORE they happen. With this frame work already in mind, it affords the opportunity to act more decisively, effectively, and in accordance with the law with simple adjustments needed for each unique situation, rather than having to develop a whole plan on the spot.

Some of those contingencies we have discussed on this very forum, including actions taken during an LEO stop. Granted, hookers and pimps weren't part of the equation though.

Meh...

That vid could be used as an example of what NOT to do for both LEO's and CHL holders alike.

I don't have much sympathy for either party.

The LEO exhibited less than professional behavior, threatened to use unlawful force, and insinuated his partner would support him as a "witness". He's the guy that gives LEO's a bad name to those unwilling to accept the fact that most LEO's perform their duties lawfully and professionally.

The CHL holder had AMPLE time to notify BOTH officers and he FAILED. I'm not buying the "they wouldn't let me speak" excuse, nor am I buying the "...but officer, I wasn't picking up a prostitute" story either.

Fail all around.

While I would agree that the "prompt" notification requirement is indeed vague, you can't argue that the CHL in the video could have been more "prompt" with his notification.