TexasCHLforum.com

Posted: **Thu Dec 01, 2005 2:23 pm**

Bingo!

Charles wins the cookie...

Posted: **Thu Dec 01, 2005 4:05 pm**

Chris wrote:
granted scott's tactics weren't the wisest of moves, but nothing he did was criminally wrong. if you want details, PM me.

I read that report you posted about it a while back and I agree with you 100%. It was a VERY CLEAR self defense shooting.

Posted: **Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:36 pm**

KBCraig wrote:Back to the original topic...

I am a LEO, without a CHL (I should get one, but between procrastination and budget, it just hasn't come to the forefront.)

dude, it's $25 and a letter from the chief. i know you can squeeze that out.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I have to admit I havenâ€™t been following this issue very closely. However, as I understand, the bogus concern is that off duty LEOâ€™s are at risk of being shot by mistake if/when they intervene to stop a crime. Even accepting this premise, which I do not, then there is no reason to prohibit off duty carrying. Just do away with the â€œalways on dutyâ€? doctrine. Then LEOâ€™s can carry off duty for self-defense, but not by obliged to intervene to stop a crime, thus removing the risk of being shot by mistake by an on-duty LEO.

Make no mistake about it; if LEOâ€™s are disarmed while off-duty, then CHL statutes will be targeted shortly thereafter! I can hear the argument now, â€œIf COPS canâ€™t carry off-duty because itâ€™s too dangerous, then mere citizens certainly shouldnâ€™t carry guns.â€?

Chas.

the agencies i've worked for had no policy requiring you to be armed at all times, although i know of some that do. you are considered on-duty 24/7, but the 'neglect of duty' only applies in your jurisdiction of commissioning. as a rule, i never live where i work anyway.

most departments around DFW have unwritten policies that you are to be a good witness, not a hero. unless we're talking life and death, there's no reason to be a cowboy.

at the agency i worked at before, an ON DUTY detective was shot by another officer. so does that also mean we should eliminate plain clothes officers?

Posted: **Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:20 am**

Chris wrote:
KBCraig wrote:Back to the original topic...

I am a LEO, without a CHL (I should get one, but between procrastination and budget, it just hasn't come to the forefront.)
dude, it's $25 and a letter from the chief. i know you can squeeze that out.

I'm a LEO, but I'm not a TCLEOSE-certified Texas "peace officer". There is a difference, yanno... and there are thousands of us in Texas.

Kevin

Posted: **Sat Dec 03, 2005 3:46 pm**

KBCraig wrote:

I'm a LEO, but I'm not a TCLEOSE-certified Texas "peace officer". There is a difference, yanno... and there are thousands of us in Texas.

Kevin

What is an example of a non-TCLEOSE LEO? I can only think of Federal or is it something else?

Thanks,

Gary

Posted: **Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:33 pm**

Any federal LEO (FBI, DEA, ICE, BOP, Parks Service, Postal Inspectors, Treasury/Secret Service, etc., etc.)... all are LEOs, but not "peace officers" under Texas law, and thus don't get the "peace officer" rate on the CHL.

Bureau of Prisons personnel number at least 3,000 in Texas, but even though we're "qualified law enforcement officers", we're not police (nor do we pretend to be).

Kevin

Posted: **Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:15 pm**

Thanks,

Gary

TexasCHLforum.com

I am not a Law Enforcement basher...