TexasCHLforum.com

mikedude wrote:

C-dub wrote:This may not be the correct place for this, but it's a question that has been in my head for a while now and with the other thread on disarming running I thought I'd ask.

For those LEOs that choose to NOT disarm someone they usually qualify it with something like, just keep your hands away from it or don't touch it or something similar. However, LEOs rest their hand on theirs all the time even when they are talking with someone. Why isn't that perceived as a threat or intimidation? Or is it, but it's okay if a LEO does it? I don't get it.

First thought is that the LEO is just that, an LEO, probably doing an enforcement action. We put our hands on our guns to be ready for a threat, and with all that crap on the belt there is no where really to place the hand. Pockets are a no non. A chl holder is a citizen, and if the officer feels safe not disarming him, then telling him to keep his hands off the gun buys time. If that chl holder then reaches for the gun, the officer has a little more time to react.

VMI77 wrote:

C-dub wrote:This may not be the correct place for this, but it's a question that has been in my head for a while now and with the other thread on disarming running I thought I'd ask.

For those LEOs that choose to NOT disarm someone they usually qualify it with something like, just keep your hands away from it or don't touch it or something similar. However, LEOs rest their hand on theirs all the time even when they are talking with someone. Why isn't that perceived as a threat or intimidation? Or is it, but it's okay if a LEO does it? I don't get it.

All I can say is that I've been stopped several times while armed and I've never been disarmed and never been told to keep my hands away from my gun or anything similar. In fact, the last few times, after handing my CHL and DL over I haven't even been asked if I have a gun with me.

gigag04 wrote:

C-dub wrote:For those LEOs that choose to NOT disarm someone they usually qualify it with something like, just keep your hands away from it or don't touch it or something similar. However, LEOs rest their hand on theirs all the time even when they are talking with someone. Why isn't that perceived as a threat or intimidation? Or is it, but it's okay if a LEO does it? I don't get it.

You are being detained while the LEO investigates a crime, a significant component of his job description. Any illusions about who is in charge in that situation should be cleared up here, rather than there.

I have read many comments as of late about LEOs with "power trips" and what not. I would like to broach the subject of citizens with authority complexes...not directed at you, C-dub, but it came up while I was replying. At some basic level, if I contact any of you during a traffic stop, family violence investigation, narcotics call, or any other criminal investigation, I am temporarily seizing you, and depriving you of your free will. Much of what we as LEOs do on a contact, even though it is annoying, is because we can. Sometimes, there might even be a reasonable explanation behind it. You might not like, but that is how it is. If cops wanted to be liked, they would have served as firefighters.

Some examples:
-sit on this curb, cross your legs
-don't put your hands in your pockets
-come here
-don't handle any weapons
-turn the car off
-turn around, put your hands behind your back

So the long answer is, they can tell you do that because it is a lawful order. As a follow up, they can rest their hand on their gun (if this is the ONLY action we are discussing) because odds are, a court would hold that such behavior is not a threat. It may be lazy, tactically unsound or whatever...but not a threat.

If you do it, it would be perceived as a threat, because your were just lawfully ordered by a peace officer not to do it.



I sort of put this question into the "why can I not do everything the police can, but without the experience or authority" box in my head, but I'm trying not to, since I like you C-dub.

E.Marquez wrote:

handog wrote:Because you and I, as members of the general public are presumed scum bag criminals until proven otherwise. You could be an escaped convict after all. The LEO has a badge and can draw on you at will. He's the good guy. Why should you feel threatened if one of Austin's finest has his hand on his holstered hand gun while questioning you.

That isn't the only way they use intimidation. Ever have your constitutional rights suspended at a DUI road block. Basically pulled over without probable cause. The police have great latitude in what they can do, once they have you stopped and under their control. Like the hand on gun, the desired effect is to establish a sense of fear and intimidation among the population.

1st: Do we really need to add in the general LEO bashing to present a point of view?
2nd: You may not agree, but for now and for the last few years.. the Supreme Court of the USA has been the finial authority on what is, or is not constitutional.. and again while you as a non constitutional scholar, may not agree.. the SCOTUS has opined, DUI check points DO NOT violate constitutional rights.


I have not personally seen a LEO stand by, talk to a citizen in many years with his hand on his gun, unless he was doing so as a tactical move (bad choice in my tactical experience, but that's a different thread)

Would I address the issue on the street? NOPE... would I have a polite, professional discussion with the department leadership ? You bet... it's bad tactics, bad PR, unneeded overall.. and possibly not even noticed by the LEO... as just a unintended bad habit.

Thomas wrote:Police Officers are open carrying though. It's a natural/easy place to rest/place the hands. If you wear a toolbelt, you'll probably find yourself doing the same thing with your tools. Sometimes, I'll find myself placing my thumbs inside my waste band or pocket.