Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO

Most CHL/LEO contacts are positive, how about yours? Bloopers are fun, but no names please, if it will cause a LEO problems!

Moderators: carlson1, Keith B

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 9009
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO

#76

Post by mojo84 » Tue Nov 04, 2014 1:01 pm

:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :nopity :nopity :nopity :nopity :nopity :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep :sleep
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.

User avatar

VMI77
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 6096
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Victoria, Texas

Re: Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO

#77

Post by VMI77 » Tue Nov 04, 2014 1:08 pm

Regardless of what's fair or not fair, common sense is in order if you don't want a LEO to shoot you during a traffic stop. I highly doubt there are any cases where a LEO just shoots someone he pulled over for no reason. There may be cases where it's not a particularly good reason, but if you move in such a way that it can be perceived as a threat...reaching into a pocket, reaching under the seat, reaching for the glove box, you're increasing the odds that you might get shot. I don't think the risks are equal..IOW, the LEO's risk of being shot is significantly greater than the risk of an innocent driver being shot by a LEO, so I don't think it's realistic to treat such moves by a driver or passenger in a vehicle as equivalent to the same moves by a LEO standing exposed outside a vehicle.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."

From the WeaponsMan blog, weaponsman.com

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 9009
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO

#78

Post by mojo84 » Tue Nov 04, 2014 1:29 pm

VMI77 wrote:Regardless of what's fair or not fair, common sense is in order if you don't want a LEO to shoot you during a traffic stop. I highly doubt there are any cases where a LEO just shoots someone he pulled over for no reason. There may be cases where it's not a particularly good reason, but if you move in such a way that it can be perceived as a threat...reaching into a pocket, reaching under the seat, reaching for the glove box, you're increasing the odds that you might get shot. I don't think the risks are equal..IOW, the LEO's risk of being shot is significantly greater than the risk of an innocent driver being shot by a LEO, so I don't think it's realistic to treat such moves by a driver or passenger in a vehicle as equivalent to the same moves by a LEO standing exposed outside a vehicle.

That's all great and I agree. However, that is not what happened according the original post. I think people are taking it too literal when people say mutual respect and self control for both ways. A cop getting anxious and showing that anxiousness over someone simply having a chl is not the norm nor is it appropriate.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.

User avatar

handog
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:01 pm
Location: Cedar Park / Austin

Re: Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO

#79

Post by handog » Tue Nov 04, 2014 1:49 pm

talltex wrote:
Charlies.Contingency wrote:
mojo wrote:Hyperbole aside, what I do think people are saying it is normal and reasonable for a citizen that is being stopped for a mere traffic violation to feel uncomfortable if the cop gets excited and anxious and then prepares their weapon to be drawn just because someone hands them a chl when ID is requested.

It is unreasonable to expect someone not to react or have thoughts based upon the demeanor and actions of another in a similar situation. If a citizen being stopped it is acting nervous and evasive, the officer will pick up on that and respond accordingly. If the cop is acting nervous and excited, think Barney Fife, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the citizen to view that as an unpleasant encounter. Hence the title of this thread.
I just want to get the point across that an officer is not being "aggressive," they are not trying to "scare and intimidate" you, nor are they committing any crime or doing wrong by touching their gun. :banghead:
Once more...You state as fact, your opinion. You cannot know someone else's thoughts or motives. In this case, in my opinion, it was due to lack of experience, but given the sequence of events, I think she overreacted. I also believe that it isn't always unintentional...there are some officers that do act overtly aggressive and do so with the intention of intimidating others and abuse their authority. I saw it happen a number of times on routine stops, with two officers I worked with back in the mid 70's.
You broke the blue code of silence :biggrinjester:

User avatar

Charlies.Contingency
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 18
Posts: 808
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 4:58 pm
Location: South Central Texas

Re: Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO

#80

Post by Charlies.Contingency » Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:56 pm

talltex wrote:
Charlies.Contingency wrote:
mojo wrote:Hyperbole aside, what I do think people are saying it is normal and reasonable for a citizen that is being stopped for a mere traffic violation to feel uncomfortable if the cop gets excited and anxious and then prepares their weapon to be drawn just because someone hands them a chl when ID is requested.

It is unreasonable to expect someone not to react or have thoughts based upon the demeanor and actions of another in a similar situation. If a citizen being stopped it is acting nervous and evasive, the officer will pick up on that and respond accordingly. If the cop is acting nervous and excited, think Barney Fife, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the citizen to view that as an unpleasant encounter. Hence the title of this thread.
I just want to get the point across that an officer is not being "aggressive," they are not trying to "scare and intimidate" you, nor are they committing any crime or doing wrong by touching their gun. :banghead:
Once more...You state as fact, your opinion. You cannot know someone else's thoughts or motives. In this case, in my opinion, it was due to lack of experience, but given the sequence of events, I think she overreacted. I also believe that it isn't always unintentional...there are some officers that do act overtly aggressive and do so with the intention of intimidating others and abuse their authority. I saw it happen a number of times on routine stops, with two officers I worked with back in the mid 70's.
I know, for a fact, that you ignored my point. I apologize for forgetting to put thee letters into it "IMO", we know this all opinionated, stop nitpicking. Everybody should have gotten what has all been said, this part of the conversation is dead.
Sent from Iphone: Please IGNORE any grammatical or spelling errors.
ALL of my statements are to be considered opinionated and not factual.

User avatar

Wolverine
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 6:57 pm

Re: Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO

#81

Post by Wolverine » Tue Nov 04, 2014 8:43 pm

mojo84 wrote:That's all great and I agree. However, that is not what happened according the original post. I think people are taking it too literal when people say mutual respect and self control for both ways. A cop getting anxious and showing that anxiousness over someone simply having a chl is not the norm nor is it appropriate.
:iagree: Not only is it profiling, but it's profiling without any statistical basis for their prejudice.
"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty."
III

User avatar

nightmare69
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 2032
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:03 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO

#82

Post by nightmare69 » Tue Nov 04, 2014 9:16 pm

If I was the OP, I would call and talk to a supervisor about the encounter. I'm sure the brass would speak to the officer on how to handle a future encounter with a CHL holder. Personally, I feel at ease when someone hands me their CHL, I know they are law abiding citizens not looking to shoot me on the side of the road.
2/26-Mailed paper app and packet.
5/20-Plastic in hand.
83 days mailbox to mailbox.


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 4324
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO

#83

Post by srothstein » Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:43 pm

Charlies.Contingency wrote:Not well put. :nono: I know everybody would like to think everything get to be perfectly "fair", it isn't. The law is not written giving you the same amount of rights as an officer, or to make either actions mean the same. The officer can do things you can't in a flip flopped point of view.

Can you start digging around in your pocket just because the officer did? Is it unfair that it 's seen as a possible threat to the officer, but not to you? It seems like ya'll WANT to think you have a defense to prosecution if you pull your gun on an officer , or because you shoot an officer, because you "FELT" threatened by the officers actions. The law clearly defines the use of force you may use against an officer.
I strongly disagree Charles. I believe it was fairly well put. The act is either aggressive or it isn't and which side unsnaps does not make a difference in whether or not it is an aggressive act. It might, possibly, make a difference in if the aggression is justified or not, but that is a different question.

And I would love for you to show me where any law gives more rights to the police officer to take action without legal justification than it does to the citizen. As a matter of fact, the law even specifies that a citizen may use force to defend himself from unlawful force used by an officer. You and I may have been trained to tell people to keep their hands in sight, but I sincerely doubt you can find a law backing up that training. I can start digging around in my pockets anytime I want, as can the officer. I can unsnap my holster and be prepared when the officer pulls me over if I so desire, just as the officer can. And, I am fairly confident that I can find a lot more shootings of citizens by police that were ruled unjustified than I can of police officers by CHLs, making the officer's actions even less justified based on the story as told by the OP.

Ask the officers and former officers on the board how many would unsnap when pulling a car over? I have lost track of the number of times I did that. Now ask how many would unsnap after pulling the car over when they found the driver had a CHL? I never did and I doubt any of the officers on this board did either (while admitting that this is a biased sample). I think the aggressive act was simply unjustified and unjustifiable.

And I do agree with C-Dub that this has been an interesting turn, and I want to add another twist back towards the original discussion. I may have missed something but I think we all jumped to the conclusion that it was a new officer. I find no reason to truly believe this. We may be deluding ourselves, but there are a lot of officers out there who really do not think citizens should be armed and not all of them are rookies. Would it make a difference in our opinions if we knew that the officer simply did not believe in the Second Amendment that as strongly as we do?
Steve Rothstein

User avatar

rbwhatever1
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1434
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Paradise Texas

Re: Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO

#84

Post by rbwhatever1 » Wed Nov 05, 2014 6:56 am

Well put Steve Rothstein.
III

User avatar

handog
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:01 pm
Location: Cedar Park / Austin

Re: Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO

#85

Post by handog » Wed Nov 05, 2014 7:27 am

rbwhatever1 wrote:Well put Steve Rothstein.
:iagree: Outstanding.


talltex
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:40 pm
Location: Waco area

Re: Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO

#86

Post by talltex » Wed Nov 05, 2014 9:03 am

handog wrote:
rbwhatever1 wrote:Well put Steve Rothstein.
:iagree: Outstanding.
:thumbs2: thank you, Steve.
"I looked out under the sun and saw that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong" Ecclesiastes 9:11

"The race may not always go to the swift or the battle to the strong, but that's the way the smart money bets" Damon Runyon

User avatar

gigag04
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 5474
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 7:47 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Re: Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO

#87

Post by gigag04 » Wed Nov 05, 2014 9:28 am

Lol at duty holsters with snaps!
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 25652
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO

#88

Post by The Annoyed Man » Wed Nov 05, 2014 9:44 am

gigag04 wrote:Lol at duty holsters with snaps!
Are they dating themselves a bit? :mrgreen: :lol:
• Give me Liberty or I'll get up and get it myself.
• I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.
• My dream is to have lived my life so well that future generations of leftists will demand my name be removed from buildings.
• Independent Minarchist.


talltex
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:40 pm
Location: Waco area

Re: Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO

#89

Post by talltex » Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:20 am

The Annoyed Man wrote:
gigag04 wrote:Lol at duty holsters with snaps!
Are they dating themselves a bit? :mrgreen: :lol:
I, for one, would willingly go back to those days in a heartbeat! Give me a Colt or S&W in Bianchi leather with a thumbbreak strap and keep all the Glocks and Kydex... :mrgreen:
"I looked out under the sun and saw that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong" Ecclesiastes 9:11

"The race may not always go to the swift or the battle to the strong, but that's the way the smart money bets" Damon Runyon

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 9009
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO

#90

Post by mojo84 » Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:28 am

The Annoyed Man wrote:
gigag04 wrote:Lol at duty holsters with snaps!
Are they dating themselves a bit? :mrgreen: :lol:
I appreciate the wisdom of from the "dated". :cool:

A friend gave me a sack of old holsters he inherited from his father. They all have old school leather straps and snaps.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.

Post Reply

Return to “LEO Contacts & Bloopers”