TexasCHLforum.com

More than that. I think they apply to all aspects of life.

Don’t go to stupid places.
Don’t associate with stupid people.
Don’t do stupid things.

suthdj wrote:To me the police should never put the life of a citizen in a threatening situation such as handog described for their own safety, sorry if that make the Leo's here upset but they signed up for the job and knew the dangers involved just like when people join the Military they knew the dangers.

Any response I actually have will be deleted so I'll use pictures.

gigag04 wrote:

suthdj wrote:To me the police should never put the life of a citizen in a threatening situation such as handog described for their own safety, sorry if that make the Leo's here upset but they signed up for the job and knew the dangers involved just like when people join the Military they knew the dangers.

Any response I actually have will be deleted so I'll use pictures.

So by your response it is acceptable to put the life of an innocent person in danger?

suthdj wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

suthdj wrote:To me the police should never put the life of a citizen in a threatening situation such as handog described for their own safety, sorry if that make the Leo's here upset but they signed up for the job and knew the dangers involved just like when people join the Military they knew the dangers.

Any response I actually have will be deleted so I'll use pictures.

So by your response it is acceptable to put the life of an innocent person in danger?

Nope. Especially not mine. However...I'll ask...how anyone was put in a dangerous situation?

gigag04 wrote:

suthdj wrote:To me the police should never put the life of a citizen in a threatening situation such as handog described for their own safety, sorry if that make the Leo's here upset but they signed up for the job and knew the dangers involved just like when people join the Military they knew the dangers.

Any response I actually have will be deleted so I'll use pictures.

Gigag04, I have your back on this one. The "you knew what you were getting into when you signed up" argument is ignorant and borders on repulsive in my book. The fact that police officers, firefighters, military know good and well how dangerous their jobs will be is exactly WHY we should give them the benefit of the doubt, show them respect, and honor their sacrifice for our collective safety and security. Obviously there are bad apples in every bunch. And obviously civil servants of all stripes (usually) sign up for these jobs willingly. But that does not discount the sacrifice the good ones make for YOUR benefit.

Anyone who thinks a police officer should go into a potentially dangerous situation against a purportedly armed "suspect" without an aggressive guns-drawn posture needs his head examined. The life of the civilian is NOT more important than the life of the cop, nor is the cop's life more important than the civilian's. But, if the cop is acting on good faith that the civilian is a potential danger, the cop must act accordingly to minimize that danger by approaching ready to neutralize any potential threat.

And before anyone jumps on this, none of what I wrote above should be construed as taking sides one way or the other on the original Round Rock cuffed-n-stuffed matter. I don't have enough facts to make a decision on that matter (and frankly neither do the rest of you, even handog who was there but doesn't yet know what sparked the RRPD response). IF (big if) the RRPD officers were responding to a "man with a gun" call, then they have every right and responsibility to approach handog with their guns drawn. Obviously, once it was revealed that handog had a CHL they should've taken it down a notch to condition yellow or whatever and they should've known the unconcealed laws better. But just remember folks, if someone calls the police and points to you as "man with a gun" there is a VERY GOOD chance you will see the muzzle end of a police weapon. Until the police know who/what they're dealing with, they must respond with due diligence as if there is a very real and lethal threat.

To ask them to do otherwise is to ask them to unnecessarily and callously risk their lives beyond what they "signed up for". Look at it this way: police are tasked with patroling and protecting all public property. If you were told there was a "man with gun" on YOUR PROPERTY, would you respond with gun holstered and a polite "hi there, how are ya? Whatcha up to?" or would you approach with extreme caution and at least your hand on your weapon if not drawn and aimed at COM?

austinrealtor wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

suthdj wrote:To me the police should never put the life of a citizen in a threatening situation such as handog described for their own safety, sorry if that make the Leo's here upset but they signed up for the job and knew the dangers involved just like when people join the Military they knew the dangers.

Any response I actually have will be deleted so I'll use pictures.

Gigag04, I have your back on this one. The "you knew what you were getting into when you signed up" argument is ignorant and borders on repulsive in my book. The fact that police officers, firefighters, military know good and well how dangerous their jobs will be is exactly WHY we should give them the benefit of the doubt, show them respect, and honor their sacrifice for our collective safety and security. Obviously there are bad apples in every bunch. And obviously civil servants of all stripes (usually) sign up for these jobs willingly. But that does not discount the sacrifice the good ones make for YOUR benefit.

Anyone who thinks a police officer should go into a potentially dangerous situation against a purportedly armed "suspect" without an aggressive guns-drawn posture needs his head examined. The life of the civilian is NOT more important than the life of the cop, nor is the cop's life more important than the civilian's. But, if the cop is acting on good faith that the civilian is a potential danger, the cop must act accordingly to minimize that danger by approaching ready to neutralize any potential threat.

And before anyone jumps on this, none of what I wrote above should be construed as taking sides one way or the other on the original Round Rock cuffed-n-stuffed matter. I don't have enough facts to make a decision on that matter (and frankly neither do the rest of you, even handog who was there but doesn't yet know what sparked the RRPD response). IF (big if) the RRPD officers were responding to a "man with a gun" call, then they have every right and responsibility to approach handog with their guns drawn. Obviously, once it was revealed that handog had a CHL they should've taken it down a notch to condition yellow or whatever and they should've known the unconcealed laws better. But just remember folks, if someone calls the police and points to you as "man with a gun" there is a VERY GOOD chance you will see the muzzle end of a police weapon. Until the police know who/what they're dealing with, they must respond with due diligence as if there is a very real and lethal threat.

To ask them to do otherwise is to ask them to unnecessarily and callously risk their lives beyond what they "signed up for". Look at it this way: police are tasked with patroling and protecting all public property. If you were told there was a "man with gun" on YOUR PROPERTY, would you respond with gun holstered and a polite "hi there, how are ya? Whatcha up to?" or would you approach with extreme caution and at least your hand on your weapon if not drawn and aimed at COM?

100% Well said austinrealtor, I would like to propose a beer summit .You, me and gigag04

We can combine it with the TXCHLF car meet that I haven't planned out yet.

handog wrote: 100% Well said austinrealtor, I would like to propose a beer summit .You, me and gigag04

Wait a minute .... does that make me the "Obama" of this beer summit?

The reason I don't want a LEO, or anyone else pointing the muzzle of a weapon at me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VNB7Z40w00" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0rf2OIOxLw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Both BG's in the above clips were on the ground, face down, had LEO's
all over them........

I'm not into bashing LEO's. However, with the authority they have, they
must be held to a higher standard of conduct. Unless I missed something, Handog
was not waving his pistola around in the air, popping off rounds, threatening
to shoot anyone or exhibiting any type of aggressive behavior. It was about printing.
There is a difference between judicious caution and over reaction. Each incident
requires the LEO to make an immediate assessment. From reading, do I think
the LEO's overreacted to Handog, Yes.

Edit: Wow. I guess everybody types faster than I do. I'm glad all concerned are good with a "summit".

gemini wrote:The reason I don't want a LEO, or anyone else pointing the muzzle of a weapon at me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VNB7Z40w00" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0rf2OIOxLw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Both BG's in the above clips were on the ground, face down, had LEO's
all over them........

I'm not into bashing LEO's. However, with the authority they have, they
must be held to a higher standard of conduct. Unless I missed something, Handog
was not waving his pistola around in the air, popping off rounds, threatening
to shoot anyone or exhibiting any type of aggressive behavior. It was about printing.
There is a difference between judicious caution and over reaction. Each incident
requires the LEO to make an immediate assessment. From reading, do I think
the LEO's overreacted to Handog, Yes.

Edit: Wow. I guess everybody types faster than I do. I'm glad all concerned are good with a "summit".

Gemini, those are tragic circumstances in those videos. No justification whatsoever. Obviously if you're going to break Rule #2 (don't point gun at someone) you better be darn sure you follow Rule #3 (keep your finger off the trigger).

But, IMHO, that's still quite a leap to saying a cop is not justified in pointing his gun at a potentially armed and dangerous suspect. If that were the case, we would not be justified in pulling our concealed guns on someone who might be a threat to our life because we might negligently discharge and injure someone.

With great power (the right to wield a deadly weapon) comes great responsibility (it's YOUR FAULT if you negligently discharge your weapon and it injures/kills someone). Because some cops have not lived up to that responsibility does mean all cops should lose that power.

I can't argue with most of that. The part of the story I don't like (if accurate) is the cocky attitude after everyone knew what was what. Not gonna get your gun back, not gonna get your CHL back, etc.

austinrealtor wrote:

handog wrote: 100% Well said austinrealtor, I would like to propose a beer summit .You, me and gigag04

Wait a minute .... does that make me the "Obama" of this beer summit?

Just what I was thinking - who has to play the Democrat?

wgoforth wrote:

davidd wrote:Hi
You may want to do a search for [Pre-paid legal service] here on the forum.
I work for the firm and i can tell you that having a plan like we offer
gives you a great peace of mind. We are getting more interest each
week and the response at gun shows and CHL classes has been great
We have been at the Dallas show this weekend meeting a lot of good
people with great questions and concerns. If you want any more information
you can contact me at davidd@[Pre-paid legal service].com
i am also looking for more CHL instructors to network with

Can you tell us how many you have in your program, and how it differs from CHLP? http://www.chlpp.com/apply.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

i have not taken a detailed look at the other site, however i will for my own benefit. I can say that our firm covers both criminal and
civil trials under the contract for no additional attorney fees. I took a quick look at the other site to find the contract but did not
find it yet. Our contract is posted on our web site for you to read before you make a choice to join up.

davidd wrote: Can you tell us how many you have in your program, and how it differs from CHLP? http://www.chlpp.com/apply.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

i have not taken a detailed look at the other site, however i will for my own benefit. I can say that our firm covers both criminal and
civil trials under the contract for no additional attorney fees. I took a quick look at the other site to find the contract but did not
find it yet. Our contract is posted on our web site for you to read before you make a choice to join up.[/quote]

Understand, thank you. Will you please tell us how many clients you currently have? I ask as over the years I have seen many specialized insurance groups go belly up due to too few clients. I want to make sure you are going to be around a while. Please forgive our skepticism, there have been numerous rumors(?) over some such groups being bogus. CHL-ers, are by nature, cautious.
Thanks

austinrealtor wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

suthdj wrote:To me the police should never put the life of a citizen in a threatening situation such as handog described for their own safety, sorry if that make the Leo's here upset but they signed up for the job and knew the dangers involved just like when people join the Military they knew the dangers.

Any response I actually have will be deleted so I'll use pictures.

Gigag04, I have your back on this one. The "you knew what you were getting into when you signed up" argument is ignorant and borders on repulsive in my book. The fact that police officers, firefighters, military know good and well how dangerous their jobs will be is exactly WHY we should give them the benefit of the doubt, show them respect, and honor their sacrifice for our collective safety and security. Obviously there are bad apples in every bunch. And obviously civil servants of all stripes (usually) sign up for these jobs willingly. But that does not discount the sacrifice the good ones make for YOUR benefit.

Anyone who thinks a police officer should go into a potentially dangerous situation against a purportedly armed "suspect" without an aggressive guns-drawn posture needs his head examined. The life of the civilian is NOT more important than the life of the cop, nor is the cop's life more important than the civilian's. But, if the cop is acting on good faith that the civilian is a potential danger, the cop must act accordingly to minimize that danger by approaching ready to neutralize any potential threat.

And before anyone jumps on this, none of what I wrote above should be construed as taking sides one way or the other on the original Round Rock cuffed-n-stuffed matter. I don't have enough facts to make a decision on that matter (and frankly neither do the rest of you, even handog who was there but doesn't yet know what sparked the RRPD response). IF (big if) the RRPD officers were responding to a "man with a gun" call, then they have every right and responsibility to approach handog with their guns drawn. Obviously, once it was revealed that handog had a CHL they should've taken it down a notch to condition yellow or whatever and they should've known the unconcealed laws better. But just remember folks, if someone calls the police and points to you as "man with a gun" there is a VERY GOOD chance you will see the muzzle end of a police weapon. Until the police know who/what they're dealing with, they must respond with due diligence as if there is a very real and lethal threat.

To ask them to do otherwise is to ask them to unnecessarily and callously risk their lives beyond what they "signed up for". Look at it this way: police are tasked with patroling and protecting all public property. If you were told there was a "man with gun" on YOUR PROPERTY, would you respond with gun holstered and a polite "hi there, how are ya? Whatcha up to?" or would you approach with extreme caution and at least your hand on your weapon if not drawn and aimed at COM?

Well written, My grandfather and uncle both retired from being LEO's. However I am not saying the LEO's should place themselves in unnecessary danger however they should not place the citizens in unnecessary danger either. When I was in the Army I did a border tour on the Czechoslovakia border with Germany during our briefings everyday we were told if we see a defector and he is being fired upon while on the German side we could not engage to protect his life we had to place ourselves in the line of fire then we could act in self defense and return fire. That was not explained when I signed up however I knew by signing on the dotted line I could lose my life and yet I signed. Police have the same responsibility.