TexasCHLforum.com

Something people aren't talking about is the comment from the guy stating the ranger break checked him. Apparently the guy was following close enough in order to be break checked. The ranger didn't use good judgement if he did actually do this.

After that, the guy passed on the right and then flipped the ranger off as he passed him. This is nothing more than a typical road rage incident where both parties were probably in the wrong to a degree. The ranger should be above getting involved in such a situation in the first place. It also appears he went way out of bounds by pulling a gun over a road rage incident.

I think they both should be held accountable in proportion to their actions as neither acted appropriately.

cyphur wrote:
Having an offensive bumper sticker is not nearly as likely to incite violence as flipping someone off. I didn't say I WANTED them to pull anyone over, nor did I say it should be standard practice. However, stupid is as stupid does. Actions SHOULD have consequences. If you flip off a cop, and you get a warning over it, so be it.

With that said, as a citizen, you are fully within your right to tell them to pound sand and object to any perceived harassment. I'd have no problem with that either.

Playing devils advocate a bit here, but could you provide the section of penal code that he violated that the trooper would have been warning him that he violated?

Flipping someone off is only a crime when witnessed and then complained about/reported by a third party. No third party involved here.

So, to me the lie was the most disturbing part, saying that he did not pull his gun until he saw the driver going into reverse. He had pulled his gun before that. On the other hand he has a long career and severe injuries on the job. He was by himself without backup. Afraid?? I can see making him take some kind of training course or some other compensation but firing the guy, too harsh in my opinion. LEO are different from civilians. I would not want their job. They are afforded (right or wrong) legal privileges that we don't have. Just my opinion.

steveincowtown wrote:
Playing devils advocate a bit here, but could you provide the section of penal code that he violated that the trooper would have been warning him that he violated?

Flipping someone off is only a crime when witnessed and then complained about/reported by a third party. No third party involved here.

Let's start with common sense public safety - which is REALLY what police should be focused on. Would you rather see someone pulled over for a polite conversation or see the cops investigating a multiple-homicide road rage incident that would likely wind up in innocent casualties?

I'm all for personal liberties, but when you put unrelated third parties in potential danger, you are being reckless. You don't need to agree with me, and I'm not trying to change your mind. I am stating my opinion on the matter, no more and no less.

cyphur wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:
Playing devils advocate a bit here, but could you provide the section of penal code that he violated that the trooper would have been warning him that he violated?

Flipping someone off is only a crime when witnessed and then complained about/reported by a third party. No third party involved here.

Let's start with common sense public safety - which is REALLY what police should be focused on. Would you rather see someone pulled over for a polite conversation or see the cops investigating a multiple-homicide road rage incident that would likely wind up in innocent casualties?

I'm all for personal liberties, but when you put unrelated third parties in potential danger, you are being reckless. You don't need to agree with me, and I'm not trying to change your mind. I am stating my opinion on the matter, no more and no less.

To each their own. The law is on the side of the "flipper" not "flippee" on this one. LEO's can't pull folks over for "polite conversations" alone. Just isn't the way it works.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

I'm not saying he should be fired from DPS, just that his temperament and professionalism in this situation doesn't seem to match the image of a Texas Ranger. He should be re-evaluated to determine that his selection as on of the few elite Texas police officers was correct.

1911 10MM wrote:

DEB wrote:I personally don't blame the Ranger. If folks would keep their hands to themselves, don't cuss out others, don't be flipping them off, then probably most of all problems would be corrected. I have been in the car with my wife and grandchildren and people show off their anger. They know that I cannot respond. I believe there was a reason why they say the Old West was polite. Someone is mad enough to flip someone off or cuss them, they probably are mad enough to physically harm them. Leave folks be, is my take.

Sticks and stones may break bones but names and gestures don't hurt. Threatening deadly force over a gesture is extremely poor judgement. The Ranger should be fired.

Plus, this ain't the Old West. It's 21st century civilized society...at least to the extent the social contract is still in effect.

steveincowtown wrote: To each their own. The law is on the side of the "flipper" not "flippee" on this one. LEO's can't pull folks over for "polite conversations" alone. Just isn't the way it works.

A LEO can have a polite conversation with someone just like I can. Neither they nor I can "pull over" or otherwise compel the other person to participate in that conversation, however.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

steveincowtown wrote: To each their own. The law is on the side of the "flipper" not "flippee" on this one. LEO's can't pull folks over for "polite conversations" alone. Just isn't the way it works.

A LEO can have a polite conversation with someone just like I can. Neither they nor I can "pull over" or otherwise compel the other person to participate in that conversation, however.

Based on the audio of the 911 recording, I wouldn't describe their interaction as a "polite conversation".

Not illegal to stick a gun in a man's face absent a threat?

rotor wrote:So, to me the lie was the most disturbing part, saying that he did not pull his gun until he saw the driver going into reverse. He had pulled his gun before that. On the other hand he has a long career and severe injuries on the job. He was by himself without backup. Afraid?? I can see making him take some kind of training course or some other compensation but firing the guy, too harsh in my opinion. LEO are different from civilians. I would not want their job. They are afforded (right or wrong) legal privileges that we don't have. Just my opinion.

I'm not going to comment directly on the incident, but will suggest that due to the Officers previous injury, maybe he's got PTSD?

Reacting out of proportion to a stimulus is a symptom of folks with PTSD.

Jeff B.

Jeff B. wrote:

rotor wrote:So, to me the lie was the most disturbing part, saying that he did not pull his gun until he saw the driver going into reverse. He had pulled his gun before that. On the other hand he has a long career and severe injuries on the job. He was by himself without backup. Afraid?? I can see making him take some kind of training course or some other compensation but firing the guy, too harsh in my opinion. LEO are different from civilians. I would not want their job. They are afforded (right or wrong) legal privileges that we don't have. Just my opinion.

I'm not going to comment directly on the incident, but will suggest that due to the Officers previous injury, maybe he's got PTSD?

Reacting out of proportion to a stimulus is a symptom of folks with PTSD.

Jeff B.

Then he shouldn't be a Ranger.

WTR wrote:

Jeff B. wrote:

rotor wrote:So, to me the lie was the most disturbing part, saying that he did not pull his gun until he saw the driver going into reverse. He had pulled his gun before that. On the other hand he has a long career and severe injuries on the job. He was by himself without backup. Afraid?? I can see making him take some kind of training course or some other compensation but firing the guy, too harsh in my opinion. LEO are different from civilians. I would not want their job. They are afforded (right or wrong) legal privileges that we don't have. Just my opinion.

I'm not going to comment directly on the incident, but will suggest that due to the Officers previous injury, maybe he's got PTSD?

Reacting out of proportion to a stimulus is a symptom of folks with PTSD.

Jeff B.

Then he shouldn't be a Ranger.

Mmm Hmm.

There are many in the military that are treated for PTSD and retained. In other can cases, they are medically discharged or retired, based on the results of evaluations. I think the only good thing I have to say about Hillary Clinton is that she championed the Warrior Transition Brigade concept that took all returning service members and evaluated them for physical and mental effects from their deployment.

Point being, police are in a very stressful "line of work". Perhaps there should be a bit more screening and potential treatment going on for officers?

Jeff B.

cyphur wrote:

Let's start with common sense public safety - which is REALLY what police should be focused on. Would you rather see someone pulled over for a polite conversation or see the cops investigating a multiple-homicide road rage incident that would likely wind up in innocent casualties?

I'm all for personal liberties, but when you put unrelated third parties in potential danger, you are being reckless. You don't need to agree with me, and I'm not trying to change your mind. I am stating my opinion on the matter, no more and no less.

Is that what the Ranger did? Or did he attempt to prevent road rage with road rage?