TexasCHLforum.com

jimlongley wrote:
And selective enforcement is not MERELY selective, it is the very definition of defiance of the law. The law is NOT "guidelines" and should not be treated as such, which takes us all the way back to the DPS attorney I spoke to, years ago now, who suggested that I could volunteer to be a test case for invalid signage, and that they (DPS) considered any signage to be an attempt and "near enough" and would enforce it. When I asked if that meant 49mph in a 40 zone was an attempt she got all huffy and hung up, I mean, it's in the 40s, right?

I guess we could use defiance of the the law or maybe even call it disregard for the law. I didn't use the example of the Chicago LEO who arrested the lady on her front lawn who was video taping a traffic stop. While he used the excuse that he didn't feel safe with her there, it was clearly a case where he was bending the law to create an infraction where none really existed. Using that as a guideline, someone's presence within an undefined proximity to any kind of police activity would constituent a safety issue. I don't see a difference between his interpretation of a safety issue with a video camera and enforcement of the invalid 30.06 sign. Both are twisting the circumstances.

I do believe that some of this discussion on 30.06 is more academic than realistic. TAM's comment that the chief in Grapevine may have more bluster than willingness to act is probably accurate. I still gauge my behavior using the "likely to happen" test. If I cannot be 100% sure of my concealment around an invalid 30.06 sign, I'm not going to risk it.

Let me leave you with another thought. After years of complaining about poor conditions at the Lake Grapevine marinas to the person with a contract from the COE to run them, a number of us went to the Ft. Worth COE office and complained to the officer in charge. Several of us got letters threatening us with a lawsuit by the marina proprietor citing tort law interference in their contract with the COE. I filled a complaint with the DPS over the conduct of the operator of a local impound lot and got a letter from his lawyer making a similar threat over tort interference in his contract with the DPS. In both cases, there is no way that I should have lost but it was going to cost me a lot of money to prove it. The law can be used in ways that those responsible for writing it never intended and the recovery process can be really expensive. You may label those situations any way that you choose.

MasterOfNone wrote: I would venture to say this is not ignorance of the law (not knowing better) but rather outright defiance of the law. Much, much worse.

Sorry but as TAM suggests, I don't think it is defiance at all. Let me suggest some examples:

An unnamed town near Ft. Worth has a bar which is the sole source of all of the town's calls for LEOs a couple of nights per week. It is a known hangout for drug deals even though there are uniformed LEOs stationed there on those evenings. One would think that the place would get shut down. Nope. The revenue it generates is important to the town so things like drunk patrons shooting guns in the air in the parking lot occasionally are simply overlooked.

In our town, the vast majority of traffic citations are for speeding. I can drive down the main road and personally see dozens of other types of violations but our LEOs apparently cannot see those same things. In fact, our town is notorious for its over enforcement of speeding as compared to surrounding towns. The practice was so bad that the mayor published an article in the town's newsletter denying it. Obviously, I'm not the only one who has noticed.

It's called selective enforcement. If the PD is told to go easy on a place of business, they do it. If the town wants the revenue, enforcement goes way up. If a place has an invalid 30.06 but the revenue is important to the town, the sign gets enforced - or at least the threat of enforcement is made. Like I keep saying, there are times when the laws are more like guidelines.

To be clear, all of this has nothing to do with the rank and file LEOs who are just trying to do the jobs that have been given to them. Behind the excesses or bending of the law are the politicians pulling the strings. I'm certainly not surprised by that.

We used to go to Grapevine Mills a lot. Since I've had my CHL, I've only been there once (and only because, at that moment, there wasn't a good alternative.). Granddaughter got a special coupon for the Rainforest Cafe and the GMM one of those is the only one she understands.

My sense is that the Mall has lost a lot of its original stores and that in the cases where there are new merchants, they are not of the some quality as the originals. We went during the Christmas season, when the consumers in the past would have packed the place and we had no problems walking in or out - there were not many people there. Some of it is likely due to the economy. But given the Mall's reputation as an outlet mall, one would expect an uptick, not a downturn in customers.

Driving by there, the parking lots are still reasonably crowded.

The intriguing part of this for me is not that the mall has posted an invalid sign but that the Grapevine PD chooses to allow its officers make their own decisions about its enforcement. That would seem to lead to an inconsistent result. The sign is either valid or it isn't. Rather than taking it up with the LEOs, it would be an interesting conversation to have with the local DA. I do understand that you won't beat the ride but understanding better whether the DA would try to prosecute might be important.