TexasCHLforum.com

gigag04 wrote:

Most of us can still be professional and even polite - but I WILL be going home at the end of my shift with same number of holes that I came on with.

Pick that up at the academy?

Even if you let your guard down ...statistics show you have an excellent chance of going home each day, and with the same number of holes. Unless you are SWAT or routinely go on drug raids, you really have little to fear of the average citizen or motorist.

Yes, it pays to be cautious....but there is a high end to "everyone is a suspect". If this attitude/practice leads to overstepping your bounds (legally) then it matters not to me how "professional" you were about it.

A few lines of interest in the last few pages of this thread:

** PRINTED WHILE EVENT IN PROGRESS**
WARNING- THE FOLLOWING IS A TCIC CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE. THE EXISTANCE OF THIS RECORD IS AN INDICATOR THAT THE SUBJECT HAS BEEN LICENSED TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN UNDER TEXAS LAW AND NO ACTION IS REQUIRED.
Did this show up on the MDT, or was it a radio response, while the cop was in the act of arresting Handog?

"Extreme" response is due to a weapon being involved.
I think due caution rather than "Extreme" response might have been in order.

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.
Let's say 8 pistolas with 15 rounds each, 1 rifle w/ 30 round clip, 2 riot guns w/ 8 rounds each = about 166 total rounds from various weapons at various positions in the tactical "L". This MIGHT be called Extreme and a show of macho bravado. Yea, in this instance I think it is......

The call came in on a guy that exposed his weapon. They don't know who he is or why he has a weapon. I'm not going to play wild wild west gunslinger and have a holster race with an unknown subject. I'm going to bring all my friends until we get it sorted out.
The last sentence is key. UNTIL we get it sorted out. Sounds reasonable to me. From reading the threads it seems like it WAS sorted out, CHL. Accidental print or weapon disclosure. No one was threatened etc etc. I think gigag04 might have handled this whole mess in a different fashion.

Only after I get in a few punches off camera
I thought this was funny.

Guys, I think this whole episode stinks for Handog. But, I won't condem all LEO's on the actions of a few. However,
there are a few undesirables in almost every profession, that includes law enforcement. Like it or not.
I am glad gigag04 is on this forum. Whether I agree with him on every issue/point or not, I appreciate that he's
often times offering a view from the other side of the room. I also think he wouldn't be here if he didn't have a
pro-CHL view point. One officer with a pro-CHL attitude might be able to influence others in his dept that may be
anti-CHL or not up to date on current law concerning CHL.
I believe RRPD might have an opening....... (just a thought in case gigag04 might be considering a move).

Where RRPD needs gigag04 is might be behind the Chief o Police desk.

Think I heard they're getting the chief from McKinney??

gemini wrote:
** PRINTED WHILE EVENT IN PROGRESS**
WARNING- THE FOLLOWING IS A TCIC CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE. THE EXISTANCE OF THIS RECORD IS AN INDICATOR THAT THE SUBJECT HAS BEEN LICENSED TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN UNDER TEXAS LAW AND NO ACTION IS REQUIRED.
Did this show up on the MDT, or was it a radio response, while the cop was in the act of arresting Handog?

I too am interested in this.

gemini wrote:
I am glad gigag04 is on this forum. Whether I agree with him on every issue/point or not, I appreciate that he's
often times offering a view from the other side of the room. I also think he wouldn't be here if he didn't have a
pro-CHL view point. One officer with a pro-CHL attitude might be able to influence others in his dept that may be
anti-CHL or not up to date on current law concerning CHL.
I believe RRPD might have an opening....... (just a thought in case gigag04 might be considering a move).

+1

Hey wait a minute. Maybe he's a spy.

gemini wrote: Guys, I think this whole episode stinks for Handog. But, I won't condem all LEO's on the actions of a few. However,
there are a few undesirables in almost every profession, that includes law enforcement. Like it or not.
I am glad gigag04 is on this forum. Whether I agree with him on every issue/point or not, I appreciate that he's
often times offering a view from the other side of the room. I also think he wouldn't be here if he didn't have a
pro-CHL view point. One officer with a pro-CHL attitude might be able to influence others in his dept that may be
anti-CHL or not up to date on current law concerning CHL.
I believe RRPD might have an opening....... (just a thought in case gigag04 might be considering a move).

Well stated, Gemini. I too am very happy to have an officer like gigag04 here on the forum. Tremendous insight he brings (along with srothstein and other LEOs here on the board).

And gigag04, if you do take a job in Round Rock - call me up - I'll help ya find a house And don't worry, there is a LARGE contingent of Fightin' Texas Aggies here in Williamson County

glbedd53 wrote: I wouldn't expect a LEO to know every law in the book

How can they uphold the law if they don't know what it is? I am not trying to be argumentative, just curious.

nd don't worry, there is a LARGE contingent of Fightin' Texas Aggies here in Williamson County

Danny, is that you?

HuttoAg96 wrote:

nd don't worry, there is a LARGE contingent of Fightin' Texas Aggies here in Williamson County

Danny, is that you?

If "Danny" is the friend you owe $500 and you're ready to pay me back tomorrow, then yes I'm Danny and you can send the money to me at ...



No, not Danny.

I don't see how a LEO can know every law, what are there, about a million of them? I would expect them to be up on the ones that they are likely to deal with often. CHL law is one of them because they deal with carrying guns. Texas cops should remember they live and work in Texas and not act like they think they are in New York.

glbedd53 wrote:I don't see how a LEO can know every law, what are there, about a million of them? I would expect them to be up on the ones that they are likely to deal with often. CHL law is one of them because they deal with carrying guns. Texas cops should remember they live and work in Texas and not act like they think they are in New York.

Would their be harm in Cuffing him, throw him in the back of his car, look up the law, realize his mistake and let him go?

chabouk wrote:Nope. But when making an arrest, the LEO should be able to state clearly what the law is, and just how the suspect violated it.

Bingo!

Chabouk and MarkSiwel have almost a perfect answer between them. The officer cannot be expected to know every fine point of every law in Texas. SCOTUS has even ruled on this before and recognized that the officer has to have a basic enough knowledge to recognize that something is illegal (and it has been so long since I was taught this that I don't have the case citation), then know where to get the correct information.

When i was a supervisor, I never expected my officers to know the law. I did expect them to keep a copy of the Penal Code (actually Gould's, now Lexis laws book with more than just the Penal Code) in the car with them and to know where to find the law they think might be broken. Then they would be able to verify the actual elements of the offense were all met.

And I would not expect him to know the CHL laws because they really are rarely encountered. Think about it, there are maybe 2% of the adult population, if that, that have CHL's. And these are the law abiding people, as we have always said, so the odds of the cops getting to meet them are much smaller. We, on this forum, know the law better because we are interested in that section specifically. Cops generally either are gun people and knwo this area (and usually support CHL's) or ar enot gun people and could care less about the gun laws.

In this case, it looks like the officer might have actually done exactly what we are talking about. I don't know how well he knew the law to begin with, but he certainly looked it up or he would not have known to ensure the word intentionally was there. We may not like his attitude, nor do I agree with his actions and definitions of the word, but we cannot say he did not know the law or where to look for it. He got the law right. It was the application of it that was wrong.

We wear uni's with cargo pants pockets...In my right pocket I have "pocket" sized penal and traffic code. In my car I keep the Lexis, and a book published by CLEAR called "elements of an offense"

However, my evals so far have said I have an above average grasp of penal, traffic codes and ccp. BUT - there are tons of others - each muni has its own code, as well as government code, alcoholic bev code, health and safety (where most narcotics violations are), etc.

As far as round rock, I don't think so...APD pays to well...if I were to move that way, that is where I would go.

AND - I want to add - I was a CHL holder LOOOOOOOOOOOONG before I was a LEO. I got my CHL in 2004. I was sworn in 2009. I'm green, but I have given myself to this line of work to be the best I can - learning all procedures and and as much code as I can.

I also like people, so I get to interact with others.


I want you guys to understand this: I get the CHL point of view - I remember being worried about printing and arrested for UCW and all that. I also want you guys to know that there is so much more that peace officers deal with. I'd say a guy comes back with a CHL about 1 out of 20 times I run someone....IF that. If you treat the officer with respect and he does anything else - take it up with the sup.

flintknapper wrote:gigag04 wrote:

Most of us can still be professional and even polite - but I WILL be going home at the end of my shift with same number of holes that I came on with.

Pick that up at the academy?

Even if you let your guard down ...statistics show you have an excellent chance of going home each day, and with the same number of holes. Unless you are SWAT or routinely go on drug raids, you really have little to fear of the average citizen or motorist.

Statistics show you don't need to carry a gun everywhere you go...yet you do.

I've been on the streets less than a year, and I've been in multiple fights, used weapons against people, had "normal" contacts turn south in the blink of an eye.... Less than a year on the streets.

Please don't preach to me about officer safety...if you want to take up some personal urination contest with me, please do so over PM's....or anywhere other than a public forum. I haven't violated anyones rights...you taking out some sort of aggression on me is inappropriate and misplaced.