Arlington Tx Officer seizes CHL holders gun

[rbwhatever1]

Sounds like Law Abiding Citizens cannot be trusted with guns AND bullets in Arlington Texas...

http://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/20 ... 4ZoU04o45s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"He said I was being a vigilante. That I shouldn't even have my gun because I could injure somebody or I could be hurt or I could be put in a situation that I shouldn't be in," Pickens said.

Pickens said she was able to get her gun back -- minus the ammo -- after visiting Arlington police headquarters on Monday. She said she was informed that the property room was prohibited form releasing the ammo on the same day as the gun, so she told them they could keep it.

Richard confirmed that department policy does not allow ammunition and a firearm to be released at the same time.

Pickens said she spoke to the officer's supervisor by phone Monday. She said the sergeant told her that it was within the officer's discretion to secure the gun at the scene but that the supervisor would have personally opted to then return the gun to the woman. She said the sergeant, however, stood behind his officer, suggesting only that the officer might need some "sympathy training."

Not satisfied, Pickens contacted the department's internal affairs division on Tuesday and was told a lieutenant would be in touch.

On Wednesday, she said an employee returned her call, telling her that her complaint had been forwarded to Deputy Chief Oz Flores for investigation.

Richard said Hill's supervisor is conducting a review of the complaint, but could not comment further.

[EEllis]

As usual you have taken what I said out of context (I don't expect anything less). If you look at what I actually stated you will see that I believed the question did not at all fit the current case thus I was answering based on the "hypothetical" question asked. But you chose to ignore that because then you couldn't make the argument you wanted to make.
You can believe there is evidence of wrong doing, but the fact is none has been presented. If I suggested an officer had committed a crime based on the same information you have used to convict this woman you would have a coronary.

Looking at it again I see your point. I think you were saying you don't think the woman did block anyone in but if you were to be blocked in then you would call. Mind you that almost pointless to my argument and in fact only questions what happened because you seem to agree that blocking in would be illegal if that did happen. The main evidence you seem to believe is she said parked, as in parked behind them, instead of something liked blocked them in. I think the evidence, if the news is complete, would be enough for a basic conclusion that she indeed did block them in. Why? Well her description while not requiring her to have blocked the car in doesn't conflict with her having done so. I think the words were chosen not to give the impression that she did so but not to denied it either which in and of itself makes me suspicious. We have a report of the officer saying she was trying to block them in, and while you state that as a he said she said I really think it's more a third party says while she is vague about it. Then there is the description of the event. We have an incident where it would be very hard to believe the car wouldn't leave if it was not blocked in. Now I'm not wanting to convict based on these reports but trying to portray it as no evidence at all seems weak. There seems ample PC for several different things to have been charged and all I was really trying to point out was she easily and properly could of been arrested. At which time her firearm would of been seized. So what this cop really did that everyone is coming down on him so hard for, is not take granny to jail. The only reason it is an issue is because he didn't when he could of done so. Those who demand an arrest are totally right on the law. I suppose he should be informed that next time he must book granny if he wants to take a gun till people cool down.

Notice I made these statements without resorting to personal attacks or comments. Personally I don't think the ones you made are accurate, have any real value to the argument, and are more than a bit condescending and insulting. I had to bite my tongue, if you will, myself, but there is no real discussion that can come from responses like that.

[jmra]

As usual you have taken what I said out of context (I don't expect anything less). If you look at what I actually stated you will see that I believed the question did not at all fit the current case thus I was answering based on the "hypothetical" question asked. But you chose to ignore that because then you couldn't make the argument you wanted to make.
You can believe there is evidence of wrong doing, but the fact is none has been presented. If I suggested an officer had committed a crime based on the same information you have used to convict this woman you would have a coronary.

Looking at it again I see your point. I think you were saying you don't think the woman did block anyone in but if you were to be blocked in then you would call. Mind you that almost pointless to my argument and in fact only questions what happened because you seem to agree that blocking in would be illegal if that did happen. The main evidence you seem to believe is she said parked, as in parked behind them, instead of something liked blocked them in. I think the evidence, if the news is complete, would be enough for a basic conclusion that she indeed did block them in. Why? Well her description while not requiring her to have blocked the car in doesn't conflict with her having done so. I think the words were chosen not to give the impression that she did so but not to denied it either which in and of itself makes me suspicious. We have a report of the officer saying she was trying to block them in, and while you state that as a he said she said I really think it's more a third party says while she is vague about it. Then there is the description of the event. We have an incident where it would be very hard to believe the car wouldn't leave if it was not blocked in. Now I'm not wanting to convict based on these reports but trying to portray it as no evidence at all seems weak. There seems ample PC for several different things to have been charged and all I was really trying to point out was she easily and properly could of been arrested. At which time her firearm would of been seized. So what this cop really did that everyone is coming down on him so hard for, is not take granny to jail. The only reason it is an issue is because he didn't when he could of done so. Those who demand an arrest are totally right on the law. I suppose he should be informed that next time he must book granny if he wants to take a gun till people cool down.

Notice I made these statements without resorting to personal attacks or comments. Personally I don't think the ones you made are accurate, have any real value to the argument, and are more than a bit condescending and insulting. I had to bite my tongue, if you will, myself, but there is no real discussion that can come from responses like that.

I never suggested that she should have been arrested. What I am saying is the officer obviously didn't have enough to arrest her or he would have. If the department had evidence against her they wouldn't be sitting there taking it on the chin. The officer screwed up and most likely violated the law in the process.
Of course she is just a citizen, an uncharged citizen you have repeatedly declared guilty based strictly on speculation. If she only had a badge...

[EEllis]

I never suggested that she should have been arrested. What I am saying is the officer obviously didn't have enough to arrest her or he would have. If the department had evidence against her they wouldn't be sitting there taking it on the chin. The officer screwed up and most likely violated the law in the process.
Of course she is just a citizen, an uncharged citizen you have repeatedly declared guilty based strictly on speculation. If she only had a badge...

I didn't say you did. I do think you stated that you didn't believe she blocked anyone in and regardless if you are convinced I do be live I gave a good case on why I hold a different view. I also think you indicated that if someone did block you in then you would call 911 which to me sounds like you believe that legally there would be issues with doing so, not that you agree she did. So I gave a good accounting of why I think the officer would have PC to arrest her and it's self evident why he wouldn't want to arrest her even if he could. He may think she crossed the line but that doesn't mean he wants to book granny. The dept made no comment at all and I'm not enough of a legal scholar to know how the officers actions should be considered under these circumstances. We have a law with no penalty, actions that would of been legal with arrest, pc for that arrest, an officer who actions could be viewed in both positive and negitive ways at one time.

[jmra]

I never suggested that she should have been arrested. What I am saying is the officer obviously didn't have enough to arrest her or he would have. If the department had evidence against her they wouldn't be sitting there taking it on the chin. The officer screwed up and most likely violated the law in the process.
Of course she is just a citizen, an uncharged citizen you have repeatedly declared guilty based strictly on speculation. If she only had a badge...

I didn't say you did. I do think you stated that you didn't believe she blocked anyone in and regardless if you are convinced I do be live I gave a good case on why I hold a different view. I also think you indicated that if someone did block you in then you would call 911 which to me sounds like you believe that legally there would be issues with doing so, not that you agree she did. So I gave a good accounting of why I think the officer would have PC to arrest her and it's self evident why he wouldn't want to arrest her even if he could. He may think she crossed the line but that doesn't mean he wants to book granny. The dept made no comment at all and I'm not enough of a legal scholar to know how the officers actions should be considered under these circumstances. We have a law with no penalty, actions that would of been legal with arrest, pc for that arrest, an officer who actions could be viewed in both positive and negitive ways at one time.

[jmra]

I never suggested that she should have been arrested. What I am saying is the officer obviously didn't have enough to arrest her or he would have. If the department had evidence against her they wouldn't be sitting there taking it on the chin. The officer screwed up and most likely violated the law in the process.
Of course she is just a citizen, an uncharged citizen you have repeatedly declared guilty based strictly on speculation. If she only had a badge...

I didn't say you did. I do think you stated that you didn't believe she blocked anyone in and regardless if you are convinced I do be live I gave a good case on why I hold a different view. I also think you indicated that if someone did block you in then you would call 911 which to me sounds like you believe that legally there would be issues with doing so, not that you agree she did. So I gave a good accounting of why I think the officer would have PC to arrest her and it's self evident why he wouldn't want to arrest her even if he could. He may think she crossed the line but that doesn't mean he wants to book granny. The dept made no comment at all and I'm not enough of a legal scholar to know how the officers actions should be considered under these circumstances. We have a law with no penalty, actions that would of been legal with arrest, pc for that arrest, an officer who actions could be viewed in both positive and negitive ways at one time.

I never said she did or didn't block anyone. What I said is there has not been any evidence presented to prove she blocked anyone.
In my response to the hypothetical question was if I was blocked in by someone I would talk to the person to see if I could rectify the problem. If the problem could not be resolved (assuming the other people hadn't already called the police) I would call 911 in order to bring resolution to the issue. Again IMHO, there is no evidence presented that she blocked anyone.

[mojo84]

[jmra]

Yep, I'm done. Tired of answering the same questions over and over.

[EEllis]

I never said she did or didn't block anyone. What I said is there has not been any evidence presented to prove she blocked anyone.
In my response to the hypothetical question was if I was blocked in by someone I would talk to the person to see if I could rectify the problem. If the problem could not be resolved (assuming the other people hadn't already called the police) I would call 911 in order to bring resolution to the issue. Again IMHO, there is no evidence presented that she blocked anyone.

So everything I just happened to mention is what? I understand if you just don't want to bother but I did go down a list point by point and your response is `There is no evidence`. Sure there have to be some assumptions, like the reporter got the facts correct, but that is hardly "no evidence".

[puma guy]

This is better than when I used to watch Saturday Night Wrestling from the Houston Coliseum.

[Dave2]

This is better than when I used to watch Saturday Night Wrestling from the Houston Coliseum.

I know!

[tomtexan]

Darn!

Dave2 beat me to it.

[DocV]

The Malinois, the Tabby cat and I are roasting Marshmallows on the campfire and singing Kumbaya. Ya'll come on over.

[jmra]

This is better than when I used to watch Saturday Night Wrestling from the Houston Coliseum.

[SewTexas]

toasting marshmallows? dang, scoot over and make room. I'll bring the graham crackers.

notice I stepped out of the argument back in page 3, I'm learning