TexasCHLforum.com

The police spokesman said the events were investigated and were "within policy."

That seems implausible, and more likely a statement required by insurance considerations, taken together with the statements about not targeting gun owners. Anything less would be viewed as an admission of sorts in any civil case.

With the 24 hour news cycle, and maybe even faster than that, political leaders now face issues much tougher than their predecessors. As the late Prime Minister James Hacker once put it, "I don't want the truth. I want something I can tell Parliament!"

rtschl wrote:According to KPRC Channel 2 website published Thursday, the officer involved resigned and is no longer with the department. It does not say the reason he resigned.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/rosen ... t/36554590

Which is what I also had seen somewhere when I first joined this thread. I think that there is a lot being said by at least one side right now both to save face and to mitigate some liability. I do wonder exactly why the former officer departed, how voluntary it was, and when exactly that decision was reached. That sounds familiar as something seen when the stuff has hit the fan (complaint filed) and someone can then simply say that they have already taken action and nothing further is necessary and that the specifics are confidential as a personnel matter.

JALLEN wrote:The police spokesman said the events were investigated and were "within policy."

That seems implausible, and more likely a statement required by insurance considerations, taken together with the statements about not targeting gun owners. Anything less would be viewed as an admission of sorts in any civil case.

With the 24 hour news cycle, and maybe even faster than that, political leaders now face issues much tougher than their predecessors. As the late Prime Minister James Hacker once put it, "I don't want the truth. I want something I can tell Parliament!"

And just how broadly something fits "within policy" is subject to a lot of interpretation, I'm sure.

"Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

Sadly there are those who will claim or imply that the officer resigned because of this stop, we do not know and if I recall the article correctly the stop was in august of 2014 so a lot could have happened since then.

Tone can indeed be everything - it can often convey more than the words. Was it "could you tell me why you pulled over officer?" or was it "WHAT THE HELL DID I DO!". If I were a cop and someone was armed and had that kind of attitude, I would be on guard also. There are certainly people with CHLs who could pass a background check but don't have the mental mindset to actually be carrying a gun (I have met a few) and thankfully they are very much in the minority.

Personally I have never asked why I was pulled over. 9 times out of 10 the first words out of the officers mouth are "Do you know why I pulled you over". Usually I have a pretty good idea why, but if I don't, I just say "not really sure - didn't think I was speeding". I am an old white guy and have probably been pulled over 40 times in my life and I have only had one officer (HPD) get a little rude with me. I asked if I had said or done something to insult him. He tone changed immediately and he calmed down - didn't even get a ticket. There was a constable patrolling our neighborhood who was bit of a thug I thought, but enough people complained about him that he was either removed from our neighborhood or removed from the constables office. He would do things like write tickets for 1-mph over the speed limit (actually saw a ticket with this on it). I have a retired family member that worked for a while in internal affairs with HPD and her attitude was that it is incumbent on citizen to report unprofessional conduct of offices, otherwise they could not build a case to dismiss or discipline them.

My general rule is always be polite when pulled over. The place to fight with a cop over a traffic citation is in court, not on the street where he has all the power - just common sense I thought.

G.A. Heath wrote:Sadly there are those who will claim or imply that the officer resigned because of this stop, we do not know and if I recall the article correctly the stop was in august of 2014 so a lot could have happened since then.

Who knows?

Sometimes people get all trained up for a profession or line of work, get into it and then realize it isn't all it was cracked up to be.

Scary outcome. Hard to say exactly what happened in the unedited video, but in the end, the officer claims he was arresting the suspect for traffic violations.

Failing to signal and obstruction in the windshield. Wonder how many others get thrown in jail for those violations.

EEllis wrote:...If accurate it is of course unconscionable but you also have a guy who was slow to pull over, tried to turn a stop into some kind of discussion, purposely or not answered questions about his gun in a manner that could be considered evasive, and that's just in the news report and highly edited video that was designed to show the man as a victim...

Yep - and even from this side of the lens, I got that buzz from the guy when he got out of the car, he was definitely projecting his unhappy...

Maybe he was a member of a "Criminal Street Gang" as defined by....whoever.....

Having been a cops' kid, growing up around law enforcement types, and having a step dad who was a hangin' criminal judge and former prosecutor, I have some cognitive dissonance about being a door mat for my rights as a citizen.

On the other hand, I have great respect for the difficult job that police officers have these days.

Rights have responsibilities, and that is where being in the adult ego state you can manage almost any situation of conflict.

I think this was a "fishin" stop, and the officers were a little too quick on the continuum of force to "stuff and cuff" the licensee.

You can argue that this was there way of managing the situation of "disarming" the licensee and there's merit to that.

Best way to avoid this is to show deference and not be confrontational at the time of contact. You do this by having the perspective that it is a zero sum game and the only way to win is to get the "stop" over as quickly as possible.

1. I would make my hands visible and ask for instructions with the window down.
2. I would follow the instructions to the letter, provide the necessary credentials, and inform the officer of where my weapon(s) were.
3. I would not query as to the reason I was detained as I know the officer will tell me when he is ready to.
4. I would not consent to a search of my vehicle and would very politely say it was my desire to protect my 4th amendment rights.
5. I would answer any questions the officers had in a polite and adult manner to get the detention over as expediently as possible.
6. If they are "fishin", I have no criminal activity to hide, and at that time would ask to cited for any class C traffic infractions if they desire.
7. If their actions indicate any heavy handedness after my polite and cooperative manner, then I shall pencil whip them to death ex post facto with letters of complaint and FOIA requests until their department wished this stop had never happened.

Contempt of cop is not something I want to be guilty of, but specious arguments about "what do I have to hide" or circular logic used in questions in an attempt to create articulate suspicion will not bear fruit with me as long as I stay in the adult ego state and have the objective of getting the officers on their way to not waste both of our time this day.

Emotions have no place here until the stop IS OVER. If I feel some breach of rights has occurred , it is my responsibility to point out that an officer may need a Personal Improvement Program to stay employed or keep his commission by putting a searchlight on them to their superiors/entity who may have future liability and costs due to his unprofessional conduct.

comsec

couzin wrote:

EEllis wrote:...If accurate it is of course unconscionable but you also have a guy who was slow to stop, tried to turn a stop into some kind of discussion, purposely or not answered questions about his gun in a manner that could be considered evasive, and that's just in the news report and highly edited video that was designed to show the man as a victim...

Yep - and even from this side of the lens, I got that buzz from the guy when he got out of the car, he was definitely projecting his unhappy...

Clearly this is an apologist thread for the arresting officer. Slow to pull over? 45 seconds to find a safe place to stop is not unreasonable. Unhappy? Gonzalez wasn't changing lanes. He was making a right turn without a signal and wasn't impeding anybody. By the way, I ride a motorcycle and nothing peeves me more on the road than when a driver doesn't signal his or her intentions. Of course he wasn't "happy" for being pulled over for something so chicken scratch.

And this: "I would have said "Yes sir. I have a loaded P238 with one in the chamber in a belt holster at 3 o'clock." Really? I don't know anyone who speaks with such detail. Especially after being pulled over. Why not Inform the officer the ammo is Remington 95 grain FMJ? Gonzales let the officer know his gun wasn't in the glove box, it was on his person. It doesn't matter if it's one o'clock or three o'clock.

I have also read numerous claims that Gonzales had warrants for his arrest which I find odd because CHL holders are not outlaws generally speaking. None of these claims have been backed up with a link or proof. I have watched the video and the officer clearly states that he is being arrested for the traffic violations. A turn signal and a cracked wind shield which obviously calls for back up with guns drawn.

handog wrote:

couzin wrote:

EEllis wrote:...If accurate it is of course unconscionable but you also have a guy who was slow to stop, tried to turn a stop into some kind of discussion, purposely or not answered questions about his gun in a manner that could be considered evasive, and that's just in the news report and highly edited video that was designed to show the man as a victim...

Yep - and even from this side of the lens, I got that buzz from the guy when he got out of the car, he was definitely projecting his unhappy...

Clearly this is an apologist thread for the arresting officer. Slow to pull over? 45 seconds to find a safe place to stop is not unreasonable. Unhappy? Gonzalez wasn't changing lanes. He was making a right turn without a signal and wasn't impeding anybody. By the way, I ride a motorcycle and nothing peeves me more on the road than when a driver doesn't signal his or her intentions. Of course he wasn't "happy" for being pulled over for something so chicken scratch.

And this: "I would have said "Yes sir. I have a loaded P238 with one in the chamber in a belt holster at 3 o'clock." Really? I don't know anyone who speaks with such detail. Especially after being pulled over. Why not Inform the officer the ammo is Remington 95 grain FMJ? Gonzales let the officer know his gun wasn't in the glove box, it was on his person. It doesn't matter if it's one o'clock or three o'clock.

I have also read numerous claims that Gonzales had warrants for his arrest which I find odd because CHL holders are not outlaws generally speaking. None of these claims have been backed up with a link or proof. I have watched the video and the officer clearly states that he is being arrested for the traffic violations. A turn signal and a cracked wind shield which obviously calls for back up with guns drawn.

No one is apologizing for anything nor does anyone have any need to. So far we don't have squat showing the cop did a darn thing wrong. As for where the warrant thing came from I saw it in the comments of the local paper. I can't confirm so I didn't repeat it but if the warrants were from a different agency arresting the driver for his current offenses then leaving the agency with the warrant to pick up the guy or not after the driver has taken care of those charges is not unusual. In that case he would be arrested for the traffic offences. Both HPD and HCSD do that. So no that is not evidence that the guy did not have warrants.

I don't know if this has been posted, but here is an excerpt from the Rosenberg Police Department Facebook page:

“In light of the recent media publicity regarding the traffic arrest of an armed CHL holder, we felt compelled to make a statement. The Rosenberg Police Department supports our 2nd Amendment rights, and all CHL holders. Please do not allow an isolated incident or the actions of one Officer to tarnish the image of the entire Agency. The arresting Officer is no longer employed with our Department. We stand with our Community.”

Via Rosenberg Police Department Facebook page.

I would post the link, but I don't have FB from work (copied and pasted from an email I sent myself).

JALLEN wrote:The police spokesman said the events were investigated and were "within policy."

"We've investigated ourselves and found that we have done nothing wrong."

Please do not allow an isolated incident or the actions of one Officer to tarnish the image of the entire Agency.

yet...

The police spokesman said the events were investigated and were "within policy."

Feels like they are trying to play both sides of the fence here... He obviously violated policy and made the agency look bad, or why else would they let him go and apologize for his actions...