TexasCHLforum.com

hillfighter wrote:

LabRat wrote:I do know that Carrollton Police will tow a car if there is no insurance and they find it on the roadway. Good for them.

I wasn't sure if "find it on the roadway" includes traffic stops but if it does I think that's a great idea. Especially if they apply the same standard to vehicles with out of state and foreign plates. They're also required to have proof of financial responsibility if they operate the vehicle on Texas roads.

There is no distinction in Municipal Code about in-state or out-of-state vehicles. From the Municipal Code:

Sec. 70.53. - Authority to direct traffic and remove vehicles.
(D) A police officer is authorized to remove or cause the removal of a vehicle or other property of any description from a street to a place designated by the Chief of Police when the vehicle is stopped for an alleged violation of a city or state traffic law or other law applicable to the operation of a vehicle on the roadway and the vehicle's owner or operator fails to show evidence of financial responsibility as required under Chapter 601 of the Texas Transportation Code, as amended.

(E) A vehicle removed and towed under this section must be kept at the place designated by the Chief of Police until application for redemption is made by the owner or the owner's authorized agent, who will be entitled to possession of the vehicle upon payment of costs of towing, notification, impoundment, and storage. I assume they must also have proof of insurance in order to operate the vehicle on city streets.

In the car insurance world, financial responsibility refers to money you are responsible for paying to someone when you cause damages or injuries in an accident. For example, if you get into a car accident and it is determined that you caused the car accident, you can be held financially responsible for any costs related to injuries or property damages suffered by other people as a result of that crash. Most states require you to prove that you are "financially responsible" for potential accidents. Insurance is the most common way folks prove this. Some people can be self-insured, but I think you have to have a bunch of money set aside for that purpose.

So if the Carrollton police have the opportunity to legally encounter the vehicle under any circumstances and the operator fails to show proof of insurance then the police are authorized to remove said vehicle.

Just so you know, in Texas, financial responsibility may be proven by an insurance policy (most common for individuals), posting of a surety bond, depositing cash or securities with the comptroller, depositing cash with the county judge, or by being a qualified self-insurer. To qualify as a self-insurer, you must have at least 25 vehicles in your name and convince the DPS that you can pay damages from any accidents. DPS rules say that to qualify for self-insurance, you must have monthly receipts that exceed operating expenses by at least $255,000 (three $85,000 accidents). An instersting side note is that the law says an individual may qualify for self-insurance while DPS rules only say a company can.

Charlies.Contingency wrote: Not well put. 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.

And by the same token, there are things that a "civilian" can do, that the officer cannot. There are few things in life that are truly "fair", and sometimes that's as it should be.

ScooterSissy wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote: Not well put. 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.

And by the same token, there are things that a "civilian" can do, that the officer cannot. There are few things in life that are truly "fair", and sometimes that's as it should be.

POLICE OFFICERS ARE CIVILIANS!!!! please stop using that term to indicate non police officers

JP171 wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote: Not well put. 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.

And by the same token, there are things that a "civilian" can do, that the officer cannot. There are few things in life that are truly "fair", and sometimes that's as it should be.

POLICE OFFICERS ARE CIVILIANS!!!! please stop using that term to indicate non police officers

I've always thought that too.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/ci" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;·vil·ian

\sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\ noun

: a person who is not a member of the military or of a police or firefighting force
Full Definition
1
:a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2
a one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force
b outsider 1

mojo84 wrote:

JP171 wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote: Not well put. 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.

And by the same token, there are things that a "civilian" can do, that the officer cannot. There are few things in life that are truly "fair", and sometimes that's as it should be.

POLICE OFFICERS ARE CIVILIANS!!!! please stop using that term to indicate non police officers

I've always thought that too.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/ci" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;·vil·ian

\sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\ noun

: a person who is not a member of the military or of a police or firefighting force
Full Definition
1
:a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2
a one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force
b outsider 1

Need to find an old dictionary. All them new online dictionaries have current use so your posted definition will not state original meaning.

anygunanywhere wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

JP171 wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote: Not well put. 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.

And by the same token, there are things that a "civilian" can do, that the officer cannot. There are few things in life that are truly "fair", and sometimes that's as it should be.

POLICE OFFICERS ARE CIVILIANS!!!! please stop using that term to indicate non police officers

I've always thought that too.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/ci" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;·vil·ian

\sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\ noun

: a person who is not a member of the military or of a police or firefighting force
Full Definition
1
:a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2
a one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force
b outsider 1

Need to find an old dictionary. All them new online dictionaries have current use so your posted definition will not state original meaning.

Why find an old dictionary, this is not an OLD conversation, it is a current one..... Not a discussion about what a word USE to mean. It was someone chastising a member for the use of a word TODAY ie currently.. and as you stated, the CURRENT use of the word civilian was properly used.

Civilian is a proper (TODAY) descriptive word to reference non Military, Non Police person.... Like it you may not, change it, you will not. Today that is what the word means. A Police officer is properly described as other than a civilian.

E.Marquez wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

JP171 wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote: Not well put. 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.

And by the same token, there are things that a "civilian" can do, that the officer cannot. There are few things in life that are truly "fair", and sometimes that's as it should be.

POLICE OFFICERS ARE CIVILIANS!!!! please stop using that term to indicate non police officers

I've always thought that too.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/ci" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;·vil·ian

\sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\ noun

: a person who is not a member of the military or of a police or firefighting force
Full Definition
1
:a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2
a one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force
b outsider 1

Need to find an old dictionary. All them new online dictionaries have current use so your posted definition will not state original meaning.

Why find an old dictionary, this is not an OLD conversation, it is a current one..... Not a discussion about what a word USE to mean. It was someone chastising a member for the use of a word TODAY ie currently.. and as you stated, the CURRENT use of the word civilian was properly used.

Civilian is a proper (TODAY) descriptive word to reference non Military, Non Police person.... Like it you may not, change it, you will not. Today that is what the word means. A Police officer is properly described as other than a civilian.

I suppose you like grouping PUBLIC SERVANTS with military and are comfortable with the continued MILITARIZATION of law enforcement. Would you also agree with the progressive CURRENT definition of the second amendment or the ORIGINALS as the founding fathers intended. You can't have it both ways. No I do not have to accept the CURRENT definition just to be politically and tyrannically correct.

All I know is that before I retired from the Air Force, I enjoyed telling people I was being promoted from MSgt to Mr.

anygunanywhere wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

JP171 wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote: Not well put. 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.

And by the same token, there are things that a "civilian" can do, that the officer cannot. There are few things in life that are truly "fair", and sometimes that's as it should be.

POLICE OFFICERS ARE CIVILIANS!!!! please stop using that term to indicate non police officers

I've always thought that too.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/ci" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;·vil·ian

\sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\ noun

: a person who is not a member of the military or of a police or firefighting force
Full Definition
1
:a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2
a one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force
b outsider 1

Need to find an old dictionary. All them new online dictionaries have current use so your posted definition will not state original meaning.

Why find an old dictionary, this is not an OLD conversation, it is a current one..... Not a discussion about what a word USE to mean. It was someone chastising a member for the use of a word TODAY ie currently.. and as you stated, the CURRENT use of the word civilian was properly used.

Civilian is a proper (TODAY) descriptive word to reference non Military, Non Police person.... Like it you may not, change it, you will not. Today that is what the word means. A Police officer is properly described as other than a civilian.

I suppose you like grouping PUBLIC SERVANTS with military and are comfortable with the continued MILITARIZATION of law enforcement. Would you also agree with the progressive CURRENT definition of the second amendment or the ORIGINALS as the founding fathers intended. You can't have it both ways. No I do not have to accept the CURRENT definition just to be politically and tyrannically correct.

You took a small thing and poorly attempted to turn it into a large thing that when twisted, supports your opinion..

None of what you accuse is relevant as I neither said it, nor implied it...
What i did say, and I welcome your discussion on..

I simply stated,, the word civilian as used was correct,valid and as it is commonly used today. In that you disagree with it's common use by a majority of people today is just that, your own, personal opinion. You wishing it were not so does not make it reality in my personal opinion..

I mean no disrespect in saying this, it's just an observation and apparently something we disagree on.

E.Marquez wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

JP171 wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote: Not well put. 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.

And by the same token, there are things that a "civilian" can do, that the officer cannot. There are few things in life that are truly "fair", and sometimes that's as it should be.

POLICE OFFICERS ARE CIVILIANS!!!! please stop using that term to indicate non police officers

I've always thought that too.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/ci" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;·vil·ian

\sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\ noun

: a person who is not a member of the military or of a police or firefighting force
Full Definition
1
:a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2
a one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force
b outsider 1

Need to find an old dictionary. All them new online dictionaries have current use so your posted definition will not state original meaning.

Why find an old dictionary, this is not an OLD conversation, it is a current one..... Not a discussion about what a word USE to mean. It was someone chastising a member for the use of a word TODAY ie currently.. and as you stated, the CURRENT use of the word civilian was properly used.

Civilian is a proper (TODAY) descriptive word to reference non Military, Non Police person.... Like it you may not, change it, you will not. Today that is what the word means. A Police officer is properly described as other than a civilian.

I suppose you like grouping PUBLIC SERVANTS with military and are comfortable with the continued MILITARIZATION of law enforcement. Would you also agree with the progressive CURRENT definition of the second amendment or the ORIGINALS as the founding fathers intended. You can't have it both ways. No I do not have to accept the CURRENT definition just to be politically and tyrannically correct.

You took a small thing and poorly attempted to turn it into a large thing that when twisted, supports your opinion..

None of what you accuse is relevant as I neither said it, nor implied it...
What i did say, and I welcome your discussion on..

I simply stated,, the word civilian as used was correct,valid and as it is commonly used today. In that you disagree with it's common use by a majority of people today is just that, your own, personal opinion. You wishing it were not so does not make it reality in my personal opinion..

I mean no disrespect in saying this, it's just an observation and apparently something we disagree on.

I served in the military. I am now a civilian, a citizen.

LEO are not military. They are civilians. They are mere citizens like me, like you. No more. No less. The same. No difference.

anygunanywhere wrote:
I served in the military. I am now a civilian, a citizen.

LEO are not military. They are civilians. They are mere citizens like me, like you. No more. No less. The same. No difference.

Thank you for your service
Yes I agree you and I are civilians.
Yes LEO are not military.
Correct a LEO is "no more or less" in your words then you or I
To the rest I politely disagree... Have a great day.. I'll let it drop now.. your welcome to the last word.

I am going to set a guideline here and the discussion on this should stop. Per U.S.C. title 10 chapter 18, law enforcement officers are civilians

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedet ... &ycord=966" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My definition, fwiw, if you can walk off your job with no more repercussions than a bad reference from your employer, you are a civilian. In the military you cannot walk off your job without being prosecuted under the UCMJ, therefore you are not a civilian. If a cop tells his chief to "take this job and shove it" he would not be prosecuted under the UCMJ or any other legal system, therefore a civilian.

Sure, in many fields people outside that field are often referred to as civilians, but if IT guys are talking about non-IT guys and refers to them as civilians, it is just them trying to separate themselves - not an actual separation of citizenship as military vs civilian is, just a term used to refer to the non-geek populous. Same with police and firefighters, just a term used to differentiate their profession with those who are not in that profession.

Personally I do not like the term being applied outside the military. I figure 12 years of not being able to walk off my job gives me that right. But that's me, others can use it how they wish, no skin off my nose.

Sorry about that Keith, I did not see your definitive answer before I hit submit.