TexasCHLforum.com

You know, it sure would be nice if these guys would actually learn and understand the law and the Constitution before opening their mouths. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that law enforcement officers can detain you on reasonable suspicion. It's called a Terry Stop. And when your weapon is in plain view, it's not a search. Morons. Finally, if you're going to quote the Constitution, at least quote it accurately. It's "unreasonable" search and seizure. That word makes a big difference.

Guys like this irritate me to no end. The police are not the enemy. They're simply trying to do their job, which is hard enough without dealing with armed morons spouting inane blabber.

baldeagle wrote:The police are not the enemy.

Repeating for emphasis

A-R wrote:

baldeagle wrote:The police are not the enemy.

Repeating for emphasis

As a law-abiding citizen, I beg to differ. Most are the enemy. There are a few purely altruistic police officers, but they are vary rare. I know no one is perfect, and it is hard to find good people in any career, but they have the authority to make life difficult for people, so confrontation is to be avoided unless necessary. Think of it this way: if you (a good person) avoid them, they have a greater chance of encountering someone who is not a good person and thus they can do their job.

Thomas wrote:

A-R wrote:

baldeagle wrote:The police are not the enemy.

Repeating for emphasis

As a law-abiding citizen, I beg to differ. Most are the enemy. There are a few purely altruistic police officers, but they are vary rare. I know no one is perfect, and it is hard to find good people in any career, but they have the authority to make life difficult for people, so confrontation is to be avoided unless necessary. Think of it this way: if you (a good person) avoid them, they have a greater chance of encountering someone who is not a good person and thus they can do their job.

I'm very confused? Are you saying avoid police because they're the enemy of law-abiding citizens or avoid police so they have time to deal with bad people?

The Annoyed Man wrote:I saw this on FB today. The cop is great. The activist is a tool.

Couldn't agree more.

baldeagle wrote:You know, it sure would be nice if these guys would actually learn and understand the law and the Constitution before opening their mouths. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that law enforcement officers can detain you on reasonable suspicion. It's called a Terry Stop. And when your weapon is in plain view, it's not a search.

You are off base in states where open carry is legal.

A Terry Stop requires reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime. Someone carrying a firearm where unlicensed open carry is perfectly legal does not provide reasonable articulable suspicion of any crime. Thus no basis for a Terry Stop.

That said, the guy in the video was a jerk.

Thomas wrote:

A-R wrote:

baldeagle wrote:The police are not the enemy.

Repeating for emphasis

As a law-abiding citizen, I beg to differ. Most are the enemy. There are a few purely altruistic police officers, but they are vary rare. I know no one is perfect, and it is hard to find good people in any career, but they have the authority to make life difficult for people, so confrontation is to be avoided unless necessary. Think of it this way: if you (a good person) avoid them, they have a greater chance of encountering someone who is not a good person and thus they can do their job.

First off, that's pretty much an insult to every cop whom I know personally. The way to avoid "painful" encounters with police isn't to avoid police. It is to avoid the behaviors which are likely to lead to an encounter with the police. The vast majority of cop's are just trying to do their job conscientiously.

On Monday, I got stopped by one of Southlake's finest. It seems that my right brake light bulb was burned out. He was right behind me and lit me up with his radar. My radar detector went non-linear. I checked my speedometer and my 10% optimistic gauge was reading 30 in a 30 zone. After I pulled away from a stop sign, he lit up like a Christmas tree and stopped me. He walked up and asked for my license and POI, I handed him both IDs along with my POI. He looked at my CHL for about 2 seconds and handed it back with no comments or questions. He wrote me a warning ticket to fix the taillight. No fine, no court, no need to appear somewhere to prove that I fixed it. Am I glad that he stopped me? YES!!! I had an unsafe condition of which I was unaware. It gave the opportunity to fix it! He was polite and professional, and he recognized my CHL as no threat to him.

To Officer Stokes of Southlake PD wherever you are, thanks for being a professional.

Jumping Frog wrote:

baldeagle wrote:You know, it sure would be nice if these guys would actually learn and understand the law and the Constitution before opening their mouths. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that law enforcement officers can detain you on reasonable suspicion. It's called a Terry Stop. And when your weapon is in plain view, it's not a search.

You are off base in states where open carry is legal.

A Terry Stop requires reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime. Someone carrying a firearm where unlicensed open carry is perfectly legal does not provide reasonable articulable suspicion of any crime. Thus no basis for a Terry Stop.

That said, the guy in the video was a jerk.

The basis for the Terry Stop is the fact that the weapon he was carrying could have been fully automatic. If that were true, it would be illegal to carry, even openly, unless he had the correct paperwork, which the officer pointed out more than once during the stop.

Jumping Frog wrote:

baldeagle wrote:You know, it sure would be nice if these guys would actually learn and understand the law and the Constitution before opening their mouths. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that law enforcement officers can detain you on reasonable suspicion. It's called a Terry Stop. And when your weapon is in plain view, it's not a search.

You are off base in states where open carry is legal.

A Terry Stop requires reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime. Someone carrying a firearm where unlicensed open carry is perfectly legal does not provide reasonable articulable suspicion of any crime. Thus no basis for a Terry Stop.

That said, the guy in the video was a jerk.

Not a disagreement..in what you posted here..

BUT in the video being discussed, I believe the LEO stated there WERE citizen complaints and the weapon in question was visually similar to a weapon that does require specific and additional documentation to be carried.

Between a complaint of "man with a machine gun" and the officers expertise in identifying what is possible an automatic weapon,which can only be confirmed or denied with a quick hands on inspection. I see reasonable suspicion add to it the attitude of the person and the location of the event (not a lot of legal shooting opportunities on that street corner).

This was a tool, looking for a fight to be recorded and get his 15 min of You tube fame... All he got was a very respectful LEO doing a fine job of protecting the sheep.

Opinions will differ, but that is my take on it.

I agree w Bronco - and I think that officer limited the duration and scope of the detention to satisfy the initial inquiry into the mechanical action of the weapon speaks to the reasonable-ness of the suspicion.

Video has been removed from YouTube.

Kythas wrote:Video has been removed from YouTube.

This one still works for now

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=sj9wahCTz08[/youtube]

No amount of observations of white swans proves the assertion that all swans are white, but one observation of a black one is sufficient to disprove the assertion.

Having caught LEO's lying red-handed on the witness stand a couple of times, recalling events as they wished they had happened, demonstrated to me that, while there are a good many wonderfully honest and capable officers out there, you can't count on it and therefore minimizing interaction with all of them is highly desirable strategy to avoid unwanted hassle. If you can't avoid it, keeping cool even if they don't is the best you can do.

Now what usually happens in these threads is that some officer will reply indignantly that these comments are insults and demeaning to all LEOs out there. Just relax. May I recommend the response of Dollie Parton who, when asked if she was offended by dumb blond jokes, replied, "No, 'cuz I'm not dumb and I'm not blond!" Then the offended responder will harangue about lawyers. Fine. There are some beauts out there, aren't there? We try to do what we can about those guys. I hope you do as much with the "bad apples" in your bin.

There was a video out some time ago about an encounter in Oceanside, before open carry became illegal in California. That was a textbook example of officer conduct, getting the business handled with restraint, professionalism and dignitude. So, we know they're out there!

The Annoyed Man wrote:First off, that's pretty much an insult to every cop whom I know personally. The way to avoid "painful" encounters with police isn't to avoid police. It is to avoid the behaviors which are likely to lead to an encounter with the police. The vast majority of cop's are just trying to do their job conscientiously.

On Monday, I got stopped by one of Southlake's finest. It seems that my right brake light bulb was burned out. He was right behind me and lit me up with his radar. My radar detector went non-linear. I checked my speedometer and my 10% optimistic gauge was reading 30 in a 30 zone. After I pulled away from a stop sign, he lit up like a Christmas tree and stopped me. He walked up and asked for my license and POI, I handed him both IDs along with my POI. He looked at my CHL for about 2 seconds and handed it back with no comments or questions. He wrote me a warning ticket to fix the taillight. No fine, no court, no need to appear somewhere to prove that I fixed it. Am I glad that he stopped me? YES!!! I had an unsafe condition of which I was unaware. It gave the opportunity to fix it! He was polite and professional, and he recognized my CHL as no threat to him.

To Officer Stokes of Southlake PD wherever you are, thanks for being a professional.

All the encounters (except one detailed below) I've ever had with uniformed police officers are through volunteer events (where I'm a volunteer) or where they are also volunteers (not uniformed). I've never been detained or questioned, but I have witnessed it many times usually with people not trying to cause any trouble (And read reports and heard accounts of such while I used to be on a conduct review board. In one case through testimony of the subjects and police officer, I came to the conclusion that the officer interjected himself in a private situation and caused it to become a legal one, the court determined no crime had been committed. I understand that police need to ask questions to see more than what's on the surface, but that officer was completely inappropriate in my opinion.)

The only time a police officer initiated an encounter with me was when I was pulled over at night for kicking up dirt on a dirt road. He never gave me a warning or anything nor even said that I was speeding (IIRC, he did say I was going "fast"), he just wanted to let me know that he couldn't see where he was going.

I realize there are good and great officers out there, but I guess I've just encountered the xx% that give the other xx% a bad name.

I wrote my initial post because I didn't agree with the fact that it was given as a blanket statement.

Thomas, fair enough - you have your reasons and stated them (as for police inserting themselves in private business, another thread here mentions Dallas PD being TOO cautious and not inserting themselves enough into a "private matter" and a woman is dead and Dallas PD is being raked over the coals.

Police work is quite often a no-win situation, wouldn't you say? Seems the "enemy" of police is not law-abiding citizens but the often Catch-22 nature of the job.

From dictionary.com Enemy (n) - 1 a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent.

I certainly do not believe the above accurately describes peace officers' feelings toward law-abiding citizens. On the contrary, police tend to cherish the law-abiding citizens, some would say even love them since they've sworn to protect them, uphold the laws the citizens make, and risk their lives doing so if necessary. Sheepdogs protecting sheep from the wolves and all that ( to Lt. Col. Dave Grossman)

Anyway, for the record since you're labeling things "blanket statements" I found your statement (highlighted portion below) also excessively broad in nature, as well as being incendiary.

But that's your perogative. Thanks for clarifying.

Thomas wrote:

A-R wrote:

baldeagle wrote:The police are not the enemy.

Repeating for emphasis

As a law-abiding citizen, I beg to differ. Most are the enemy. There are a few purely altruistic police officers, but they are vary rare. I know no one is perfect, and it is hard to find good people in any career, but they have the authority to make life difficult for people, so confrontation is to be avoided unless necessary. Think of it this way: if you (a good person) avoid them, they have a greater chance of encountering someone who is not a good person and thus they can do their job.