TexasCHLforum.com

jmra wrote:

EEllis wrote:The woman committed a crime by blocking in the people's car. She did not have the right to do so. That she got lucky and 2 people were arrested for issues totally unrelated to why she blocked them in doesn't really matter. She did not use her gun in doing so but she easily could of been arrested and she wouldn't be having a CHL right now anyways. This was a cheap lesson that I don't think the woman learned. I think the situation may have been that to keep the gun he should of arrested the woman, which he obviously didn't want to, but he felt something needed to be done. If that is the case who here would of made the cop arrest the woman?

The woman committed a crime? I didn't realize you were the judge and jury in this case.

I'm withholding judgment until I see the report including all facts of the case. I would recommend others do the same.

mojo84 wrote:

jmra wrote:

EEllis wrote:The woman committed a crime by blocking in the people's car. She did not have the right to do so. That she got lucky and 2 people were arrested for issues totally unrelated to why she blocked them in doesn't really matter. She did not use her gun in doing so but she easily could of been arrested and she wouldn't be having a CHL right now anyways. This was a cheap lesson that I don't think the woman learned. I think the situation may have been that to keep the gun he should of arrested the woman, which he obviously didn't want to, but he felt something needed to be done. If that is the case who here would of made the cop arrest the woman?

The woman committed a crime? I didn't realize you were the judge and jury in this case.

I'm withholding judgment until I see the report including all facts of the case. I would recommend others do the same.

I hope it isn't the case, but I think this is the last time we will hear publically anyway about this incident. Nothing will happen. As another poster points out, she was told how to get her weapon returned to her and she has it. As for a "crime" being committed -- if it is a crime to block another car in a parking space, stalling for time until Police arrive, if that's a crime, yes, she should have been arrested and her weapon confiscated.
That's not me talking, that's the law. If Officer Hill didn't want to follow the law, then he needs to find another line of work. Based on the parking space crime theory, he didn't follow the law anyway. He either didn't arrest her for committing a crime, justifying the confiscation, OR, there was no crime committed, and he confiscated her weapon and broke the law anyway. Either way it seems, he exercised an extreme error in judgment. Extreme you say? Yes. One could make a case he violated her second, fourth, and probably sixth amendments to the Constitution. As I said, the APD internal unit has it, there will be no more public disclosures of the investigation, Officer Hill will receive no punishment, this incident is done. On another note -- it's Election runoff day, go exercise your right to vote.

"That's not me talking, that's the law."

What law would that be?

baseballguy2001 wrote:I hope it isn't the case, but I think this is the last time we will hear publically anyway about this incident. Nothing will happen. As another poster points out, she was told how to get her weapon returned to her and she has it. As for a "crime" being committed -- if it is a crime to block another car in a parking space, stalling for time until Police arrive, if that's a crime, yes, she should have been arrested and her weapon confiscated.
That's not me talking, that's the law. If Officer Hill didn't want to follow the law, then he needs to find another line of work. Based on the parking space crime theory, he didn't follow the law anyway. He either didn't arrest her for committing a crime, justifying the confiscation, OR, there was no crime committed, and he confiscated her weapon and broke the law anyway. Either way it seems, he exercised an extreme error in judgment. Extreme you say? Yes. One could make a case he violated her second, fourth, and probably sixth amendments to the Constitution. As I said, the APD internal unit has it, there will be no more public disclosures of the investigation, Officer Hill will receive no punishment, this incident is done. On another note -- it's Election runoff day, go exercise your right to vote.

One could argue that being intentionally blocked in constitutes a form of false imprisonment.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

baseballguy2001 wrote:I hope it isn't the case, but I think this is the last time we will hear publically anyway about this incident. Nothing will happen. As another poster points out, she was told how to get her weapon returned to her and she has it. As for a "crime" being committed -- if it is a crime to block another car in a parking space, stalling for time until Police arrive, if that's a crime, yes, she should have been arrested and her weapon confiscated.
That's not me talking, that's the law. If Officer Hill didn't want to follow the law, then he needs to find another line of work. Based on the parking space crime theory, he didn't follow the law anyway. He either didn't arrest her for committing a crime, justifying the confiscation, OR, there was no crime committed, and he confiscated her weapon and broke the law anyway. Either way it seems, he exercised an extreme error in judgment. Extreme you say? Yes. One could make a case he violated her second, fourth, and probably sixth amendments to the Constitution. As I said, the APD internal unit has it, there will be no more public disclosures of the investigation, Officer Hill will receive no punishment, this incident is done. On another note -- it's Election runoff day, go exercise your right to vote.

One could argue that being intentionally blocked in constitutes a form of false imprisonment.

It has been proven time and again on here and most any other internet forum anything can be argued.

We owe the LEO the same consideration as we expect for ourselves (and for the CHL).

Based on the article I think the lady's actions were imprudent and confrontational. What if it where you being blocked by her and you where innocent of her assumptions? What if you had an emergency situation and time was vital & she was blocking you?

Maybe the LEO overplayed his hand - but we all accept that when armed we must always act with reasonable restraint & avoid unnecessary confrontation - something I believe the CHL failed to do.

Abraham wrote:"That's not me talking, that's the law."

What law would that be?

At the beginning of this thread -- Section 411.207: AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM

Keith B wrote:This is not going to end well for the officer or the city. I smell a good case law suit coming up.

Based on the facts we have now, what does she sue for? The PD removing her personal property w/o cause? What's that actually worth? You'll come out of pocket on that attorney.

Look at it from the other way. Had the PD not disarmed her and she shot someone later because she was emotional and aggravated, what's that worth?


I agree with you - no cause that I see to take the weapon away... However, I don't think this is going to be a high value civil case.

jmra wrote: The woman committed a crime? I didn't realize you were the judge and jury in this case.

By her own admission she committed a crime. What a court would do is figure out exactly what crime it was and if she needed punishment but it is illegal to do what she did.

EEllis wrote:

jmra wrote: The woman committed a crime? I didn't realize you were the judge and jury in this case.

By her own admission she committed a crime. What a court would do is figure out exactly what crime it was and if she needed punishment but it is illegal to do what she did.

what crime did she commit? she asked them to wait, they waited. doesn't sound like a crime to me. actually sounds pretty polite. if there were a crime in progress the other people should have called 911 themselves, shouldn't they?

Looks like she did a good thing by getting a couple of bad guys off the streets. Maybe what she did was just a pretextual stop based on probable suspicion the vehicle had been in a hit and run previously instead of a "crime". At least that's what a cop would claim if they had made the same stop based upon the vehicle fitting a description of a vehicle that had been in a hit and run.

Instead of taking her gun, maybe they should deputize her as that was some goof police work by most accounts.

I also find it silly the property room won't release the lady's gun and ammo on the same day.

cb1000rider wrote:

Keith B wrote:This is not going to end well for the officer or the city. I smell a good case law suit coming up.

Based on the facts we have now, what does she sue for? The PD removing her personal property w/o cause? What's that actually worth? You'll come out of pocket on that attorney.

Look at it from the other way. Had the PD not disarmed her and she shot someone later because she was emotional and aggravated, what's that worth?


I agree with you - no cause that I see to take the weapon away... However, I don't think this is going to be a high value civil case.

Theft or illegal seizure of property. If she was arrested, the officer had the right to seize the handgun. However, since she was not arrested he had no legal right to retain her property after she was released. No different than saying 'I am gonna take your purse because you are manic and might hit someone with it.'

EEllis wrote:

jmra wrote: The woman committed a crime? I didn't realize you were the judge and jury in this case.

By her own admission she committed a crime. What a court would do is figure out exactly what crime it was and if she needed punishment but it is illegal to do what she did.

What crime did she commit? She didn't state she blocked them in, just parked behind them. The officer supposedly said she 'attempted' to block them'

EEllis wrote:The woman committed a crime by blocking in the people's car.

What crime would that be?

Can you please cite the statute?

Maybe she was making a citizens arrest by holding them in place while waiting for the LEO to arrive.