TexasCHLforum.com

I would like to conclude this thread / trilogy with a quote from the Williamson County judge:


"I would rather know if some one is carrying."



The End

End of thread




New thread coming: Lessons from Cuffed & Stuffed

Many thanks to handog for giving us all the details of his wrongful treatment!! I've learned a lot from that, and I work in an office about two blocks from the RR police station.

I’m Glad to hear some good may have come out or this by sharing my story austin. I'm glad gig was here as well. This would be a boring forum if we didn't have such different points of view.

Mike1951 wrote:

handog wrote:

Mike1951 wrote:Handog, if I had the original, I'd be happy to scan the 18 pages into a PDF file. We can probably find a site where we can post it.

Until that happens, we will continue to read gigag04's opinions that all LEO's are perfect and that no officer can ever be wrong.

Mike, (no offence) I really don't care if you believe me or not; besides it's public record. You can request a copy but you won't get the original.

It need not be the original as long as the copy is clean enough to scan. I have always believed you. I'm just tiring of gigag04's pious defense of all LEOs.

However, if it isn't posted, more will question why it wasn't. My offer was to stop the second guessing, but I'm not motivated enough to request my own copy.

There are some here that (with good intentions) will defend LEOs regardless of 18 or 118 pages. It would not stop the second guessing.

Mike1951 wrote:Handog, if I had the original, I'd be happy to scan the 18 pages into a PDF file. We can probably find a site where we can post it.

Until that happens, we will continue to read gigag04's opinions that all LEO's are perfect and that no officer can ever be wrong.

Mike, (no offence) I really don't care if you believe me or not; besides it's public record. You can request a copy but you won't get the original.

gigag04 wrote:I haven't said that you were guilty and got off. I'm just curious what the exact events that led to your arrest - which will be contained in the probable cause statement that got sent to the CA's office.

I have a sworn affidavit with a signature from the arresting officer. I think that's what you’re after. As I said, the witness says I reached for my wallet and exposed the handgun.
That was his probable cause.
Remember it was in an inside the waistband holster. Then it says "Since the defendant intentionally failed to conceal his handgun I placed him under arrest."
Only an idiot (not you) would consider that intentional. If I wanted everyone to see it why would I bother tucking it inside my waistband?
As far as the exact events..It's nothing that I have not described here already. It describes being dispatched, identifying the suspect and making the arrest.

[quote="gigag04"] I think details are being left out. We have yet to see 18 pages of information...





If there are incriminating details in the 18 pages then why did the judge immediately dismiss it and let me out WITHOUT bail? Why did the County attorney toss it out so quickly? Why was my CHL returned without question?

The answer is that NO CRIME WAS COMMITED but you will never admit it!

OK, let's say you're gut feeling is right and in the 18 pages there was a crime committed. Are you saying they let a criminal walk? Wouldn’t that be a dereliction of duty?


With +/- 11 officers responding it was probably toned out as a hot call where everyone free goes.

This demonstrates poor communication between the 911 operator and the police /dispatcher. The 911 operator asked if I had a badge. Reasonable question but how about is he threatening? Does he seem upset? This may have prevented the overreaction. And what about NO ACTION REQUIRED? They didn’t get the message in time? I think there is room for improvement.

Personally I have no problem with the felony stop with guns drawn. I didn’t like it. It's the number of guns. According to the report there were 11 LEOs all pointing their weapons at me. That’s extreme. I can see 3 or 4 but after that it was pure bravado.

03Lightningrocks wrote:This whole deal is ridiculous. I also believe the arrest was made as a show for the crowd. After making complete fools of themselves, it would be pretty darned hard to let the OP walk.

I can just picture them telling the 911 caller don’t worry Mam, We've taken him off the streets. The threat is over. Makes me want to puke!

Can we get a puking animation added to the smilies?

glbedd53 wrote: The notion that we just cuff em and stuff em and let the judge hash it out tomorrow or Monday is ridiculous.

Yes, Thank you!

And the notion that if the cop is busy or about to get off their shift dictates weather or not he/She makes an arrest is disturbing.

You're welcome. I was just thinking of the double standard in the above post myself. If I don't know CHL law I get punished with fines and the possibility of many years behind bars yet if the LEO is not sure of the law he gets a pass. I was told in my CHL class that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Seems to me that should work both ways.

"a cop is going to investigate."

Wouldn't an investigation include getting BOTH sides of the story? I watch the TV show Cops and that is what they do before they make an arrest.

gigag04 wrote:

handog wrote:Again, he didn’t care that much about the details.

Details are probably contained in his 18 page report no?



Ex:

"(victim) said that she was assaulted by the known suspect striking her right eye with a fist, causing injury. The suspect was a family member."

I wasn't there, I don't know that he did, but the marks and her statement seem to fit - if she is willing to prosecute this fictitious known suspect will be arrested, for class A family violence - injury. And that statement says exactly that.

OK back on topic..

The details are there but not significant. Again, it describes two people minding their own business. Sitting, walking to the car so on..

"And adding the word "intentional" is straight copying out of the penal code - every report will have the wording from the PC of the offense in the public side of the narrative."

Yes, in this case it was make the arrest. I'll find the penal code violation later. If I can't find one I can rewrite history a little to validate the arrest. If the charges don't stick because of that pesky word "intentional" well..no skin off my nose right boys


Any volunteers to start my car in the morning?

My new P380 and DeSantis Nemesis pocket holder have arrived. It's my stay out of jail rig. Smaller yes, but I figure one between the eyes will drop any bad guy. After 2 in the chest and 1 in the head the bad guys won't say, " that's only a .380". I also bought a box of RBCD ammo; I was told they explode on contact so I got a bit exited but after reading some reviews I'm not sure they were worth the high price.

gigag04 wrote:

handog wrote:

gigag04 wrote:That reads like a "public narrative" side of the report...where all you do is describe the elements of the offense. It is not the actual step by step series of events as they took place.

There should be a non-public side, which will most likely consist of the officer's probable cause statement. The public side is what newspapers get for the daily updates.

It's all public record as you know. I'm not going to scan and post 18 pages of a step by step report that describes two people minding their own business. Anyone can contact Records at the RRPD and request a copy. You will see there is nothing pertinent that I have left out. In fact if you can find anything in the report that justifies my arrest I will buy you a steak dinner. You can send me the bill.

No - because (no offense intended) - I don't care that much. A public narrative of a report is not near enough to base an opinion off of, IMO. The only thing it establishes is what offense took place, when and where it occured, who, if anyone, was arrested, and what they were charged with. Also a victims name may or may not be in it. It is not a true "report."

If you got a copy of the non-public narrative under a full open records request (which is available for sure) then that part contains the actual reporting - and it will give others an insight into the officer's train of thought.

No offense taken. I think the arresting officer had the same "I don’t care that much" attitude when he made the arrest and wrote the report. He clearly added the word intentional to the report to cover his rear end. If there was a witness claiming I intentionally revealed my hand gun I'm sure it would have been included in the so called "Not true report" that was sent to me.

There are cops who believe the ordinary citizen should not be able to CC and I believe that I was stopped by one of them. Why? Because the only question I was asked was “Are you a cop?” I replied “no” and the next thing I knew I was sitting in a jail cell.
Again, he didn’t care that much about the details.