TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:The scenario presented is that the officer reacted to the OP's chl the way she did. There are many other scenarios where that reaction would be considered appropriate.

C-dub wrote:

handog wrote:

C-dub wrote:This thread has taken an interesting turn. Unsnapping or releasing one or two retention devices is not an aggressive act, but does it rise to the level of the threat of deadly force? I see officers rest their hand on the grip of their gun often. Most of the time it is just a place to rest their hand. However, in an instant such as the OP described, that's not the case. There seems to be a fine line here and I'm not sure when or why it is okay for a LEO to cross over it, while I am not.

If the OP reached for his gun and released its retention do you think the LEO would have considered it an act of aggression ?

Getting on a little later tonight.

In order for the OP or anyone's action of releasing retention and reaching for their gun to have the same effect as the officer's, wouldn't it have to be intentionally unconcealed? Otherwise, if retention was released and your hand was on your gun and it remained concealed the officer would never know. The officer doesn't have that ability since their sidearm is out there for all to see.

mojo84 wrote:
Like I said, both ways? If action is justified by "feelings" alone, maybe the OP felt threatened by the nervous cop's actions of preparing her weapon to be drawn. If there was any other indicator that the OP may have been a danger in addition to having a chl, I could understand why the cop was so nervous and extra causious. Based on the op, I don't think the level of nervousness was warranted.

Vol Texan wrote:

C-dub wrote:

handog wrote:

C-dub wrote:This thread has taken an interesting turn. Unsnapping or releasing one or two retention devices is not an aggressive act, but does it rise to the level of the threat of deadly force? I see officers rest their hand on the grip of their gun often. Most of the time it is just a place to rest their hand. However, in an instant such as the OP described, that's not the case. There seems to be a fine line here and I'm not sure when or why it is okay for a LEO to cross over it, while I am not.

If the OP reached for his gun and released its retention do you think the LEO would have considered it an act of aggression ?

Getting on a little later tonight.

In order for the OP or anyone's action of releasing retention and reaching for their gun to have the same effect as the officer's, wouldn't it have to be intentionally unconcealed? Otherwise, if retention was released and your hand was on your gun and it remained concealed the officer would never know. The officer doesn't have that ability since their sidearm is out there for all to see.[/

If the CHL holder makes ANY move toward their gun (such as releasing retention) during a traffic stop, then it should (rightfully) be considered by a LEO to be an aggressive maneuver.

If it's aggressive when the CHL holder does it, then it's also aggressive when the LEO does it.

This is particularly true in the situation described in the OP in which the officer went from a "friendly and non confrontational manner" to a situation where the officer "reacted badly ... placed her left hand on her pistol, removed the retention, stepped back behind me, and demanded in a shrill voice "ARE YOU ARMED!" ... (snip) ... She asked "WHERE IS IT!"

This isn't LEO-bashing, rather it's normalizing the behavior so that it is interpreted the same way for both individuals. Justifying the action as different (by any means) is an unfair (and likely biased) assessment.

handog wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

C-dub wrote:

handog wrote:

C-dub wrote:This thread has taken an interesting turn. Unsnapping or releasing one or two retention devices is not an aggressive act, but does it rise to the level of the threat of deadly force? I see officers rest their hand on the grip of their gun often. Most of the time it is just a place to rest their hand. However, in an instant such as the OP described, that's not the case. There seems to be a fine line here and I'm not sure when or why it is okay for a LEO to cross over it, while I am not.

If the OP reached for his gun and released its retention do you think the LEO would have considered it an act of aggression ?

Getting on a little later tonight.

In order for the OP or anyone's action of releasing retention and reaching for their gun to have the same effect as the officer's, wouldn't it have to be intentionally unconcealed? Otherwise, if retention was released and your hand was on your gun and it remained concealed the officer would never know. The officer doesn't have that ability since their sidearm is out there for all to see.

If the CHL holder makes ANY move toward their gun (such as releasing retention) during a traffic stop, then it should (rightfully) be considered by a LEO to be an aggressive maneuver.

If it's aggressive when the CHL holder does it, then it's also aggressive when the LEO does it.

This is particularly true in the situation described in the OP in which the officer went from a "friendly and non confrontational manner" to a situation where the officer "reacted badly ... placed her left hand on her pistol, removed the retention, stepped back behind me, and demanded in a shrill voice "ARE YOU ARMED!" ... (snip) ... She asked "WHERE IS IT!"

This isn't LEO-bashing, rather it's normalizing the behavior so that it is interpreted the same way for both individuals. Justifying the action as different (by any means) is an unfair (and likely biased) assessment.

Well put.

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:
Like I said, both ways? If action is justified by "feelings" alone, maybe the OP felt threatened by the nervous cop's actions of preparing her weapon to be drawn. If there was any other indicator that the OP may have been a danger in addition to having a chl, I could understand why the cop was so nervous and extra causious. Based on the op, I don't think the level of nervousness was warranted.

OK he felt threatened. So?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:
Like I said, both ways? If action is justified by "feelings" alone, maybe the OP felt threatened by the nervous cop's actions of preparing her weapon to be drawn. If there was any other indicator that the OP may have been a danger in addition to having a chl, I could understand why the cop was so nervous and extra causious. Based on the op, I don't think the level of nervousness was warranted.

OK he felt threatened. So?

Why is that ok?

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

handog wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

C-dub wrote:

handog wrote:

C-dub wrote:This thread has taken an interesting turn. Unsnapping or releasing one or two retention devices is not an aggressive act, but does it rise to the level of the threat of deadly force? I see officers rest their hand on the grip of their gun often. Most of the time it is just a place to rest their hand. However, in an instant such as the OP described, that's not the case. There seems to be a fine line here and I'm not sure when or why it is okay for a LEO to cross over it, while I am not.

If the OP reached for his gun and released its retention do you think the LEO would have considered it an act of aggression ?

Getting on a little later tonight.

In order for the OP or anyone's action of releasing retention and reaching for their gun to have the same effect as the officer's, wouldn't it have to be intentionally unconcealed? Otherwise, if retention was released and your hand was on your gun and it remained concealed the officer would never know. The officer doesn't have that ability since their sidearm is out there for all to see.

If the CHL holder makes ANY move toward their gun (such as releasing retention) during a traffic stop, then it should (rightfully) be considered by a LEO to be an aggressive maneuver.

If it's aggressive when the CHL holder does it, then it's also aggressive when the LEO does it.

This is particularly true in the situation described in the OP in which the officer went from a "friendly and non confrontational manner" to a situation where the officer "reacted badly ... placed her left hand on her pistol, removed the retention, stepped back behind me, and demanded in a shrill voice "ARE YOU ARMED!" ... (snip) ... She asked "WHERE IS IT!"

This isn't LEO-bashing, rather it's normalizing the behavior so that it is interpreted the same way for both individuals. Justifying the action as different (by any means) is an unfair (and likely biased) assessment.

Well put.

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.

mojo wrote:I don't think I, nor anyone else, is saying it's ok to mess with your gun, dig in your pockets or shoot a cop because the cop makes someone feel uncomfortable.

Hyperbole aside, what I do think people are saying it is normal and reasonable for a citizen that is being stopped for a mere traffic violation to feel uncomfortable if the cop gets excited and anxious and then prepares their weapon to be drawn just because someone hands them a chl when ID is requested.

It is unreasonable to expect someone not to react or have thoughts based upon the demeanor and actions of another in a similar situation. If a citizen being stopped it is acting nervous and evasive, the officer will pick up on that and respond accordingly. If the cop is acting nervous and excited, think Barney Fife, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the citizen to view that as an unpleasant encounter. Hence the title of this thread.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:
Like I said, both ways? If action is justified by "feelings" alone, maybe the OP felt threatened by the nervous cop's actions of preparing her weapon to be drawn. If there was any other indicator that the OP may have been a danger in addition to having a chl, I could understand why the cop was so nervous and extra causious. Based on the op, I don't think the level of nervousness was warranted.

OK he felt threatened. So?

Why is that ok?

It's not okay, but there isn't much he can do other than complain. (Not saying he's whining, I'm glad he shared his encounter with us.)Because it's an opinion of the OP that he "felt" something, and that the officer was within her rights. However, I feel confident in saying that we ALL AGREE that the officer's "behavior" according to the OP was not warranted, and it was the way the officer behaved that made the OP "feel threatened." That is not good, but some people have gone to arguing that the officers "actions" were not within her rights, aside from her reportedly terrible approach to the situation and her "behavior."

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I meant more, why is it ok that a citizen has to feel threatened for no good reason? I take issue more with that philosophical view than with the cop's actions in the OP. I'm not threatened if an officer walks up with his hand on his sidearm-I doubt I'd even be able to see it, but I understand being wary. I am concerned with the view though, that citizens feeling threatened - for no justifiable reason - is ok.

I'll note, again my intereactions with police in the last two decades have been minimal, but at no time did I feel threatened in any manner or that the police were acting in any matter except absolute professionalism.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Yea I hear you on that. Agreed on all points.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

mojo wrote:Hyperbole aside, what I do think people are saying it is normal and reasonable for a citizen that is being stopped for a mere traffic violation to feel uncomfortable if the cop gets excited and anxious and then prepares their weapon to be drawn just because someone hands them a chl when ID is requested.

It is unreasonable to expect someone not to react or have thoughts based upon the demeanor and actions of another in a similar situation. If a citizen being stopped it is acting nervous and evasive, the officer will pick up on that and respond accordingly. If the cop is acting nervous and excited, think Barney Fife, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the citizen to view that as an unpleasant encounter. Hence the title of this thread.

I just want to get the point across that an officer is not being "aggressive," they are not trying to "scare and intimidate" you, nor are they committing any crime or doing wrong by touching their gun.

Cedar Park Dad wrote: I meant more, why is it ok that a citizen has to feel threatened for no good reason? I take issue more with that philosophical view than with the cop's actions in the OP. I'm not threatened if an officer walks up with his hand on his sidearm-I doubt I'd even be able to see it, but I understand being wary. I am concerned with the view though, that citizens feeling threatened - for no justifiable reason - is ok.

I'll note, again my intereactions with police in the last two decades have been minimal, but at no time did I feel threatened in any manner or that the police were acting in any matter except absolute professionalism.