Attitudes exist on both sides of a conversation.
Just saying.
Cool. So let’s not converse.
some cops do have an attitude but so what? look at what most has to go through today?
I know I wouldn’t want to be a cop today with all the anti law enforcement rhetoric going around today
At least Trump isnt putting them down like his predecessor
Again, 411.205 doesn’t give the police the right to ID me because they feel like it. Read it VERY carefully. . .
GC §411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder’s person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder’s driver’s license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder’s handgun license.
IF I’m carrying AND he demands that I display ID, I shall display BOTH… this means that if he’s lawfully arrested me and is identifying me per 38.02, I must show my LTC at the same time. This isn’t a requirement to ID because I have a LTC. The wording is very clear and the order is not mistakable. Lots of cops argue it but the debate in the house was clear that it wasn’t designed to allow police to violate my right to privacy because I choose to lawfully carry a firearm.
Again, there’s no such thing as “obstructing” by not providing ID. It just doesn’t exist. With all respect, you just don’t know what you’re talking about. I have no requirement to AID him in an investigation against me. I have no requirement to ID UNLESS I’ve been LAWFULLY arrested. NOW… had he come up, arrested me for suspicion of a crime and accused me of illegally carrying a firearm, THEN I would have been required to ID and at that time, to show my CHL. This crap isn’t that complex. If I had been arrested and sent to jail for the night for a LAWFUL ACTIVITY, I would have filed a suit against the city and a complaint against this office. The fact that he didn’t do squat tells me he knows the law far better than you.
1 Like
They get what they give when dealing with me. I don’t subscribe to intimidation tactics. 
Yup. I’m not arguing you have the right to stop and frisk in the UK, just arguing that those powers don’t exist in Texas.
When was I last in the UK? About two years ago. I didn’t care for the amount of surveillance your government does against “free” citizens. I just don’t think it’s safe to give government that kind of power considering their records in the past 100 years. As to “far less chance of getting jumped”, your criminal statistics don’t bear that out. Compare London to NYC. I don’t consider big cities like NYC to be particularly safe in the US but with all of the stop and frisk and CCTV’s, you still have similar (though worse) crime stats as New York. I don’t think it makes a difference in crime, I think it does make a difference in that the government is watching millions to track hundreds… I’d rather they up the incarceration terms and stop recidivism. I have no issues with the police showing up and prosecuting crime, that’s their job. Where I have a problem is when they start to limit rights to try to lower crime. You cannot make the gazelle safe from the lion by removing its horns.
As to our 18 year olds not buying alcohol, that’s idiotic. If we can send them to war, they should be granted FULL RIGHTS. It’s retarded to charge an adult with underage drinking… Again, I’m not saying the US is perfect, we have stupid laws as well but the specific reference to the plastic knife is the result of idiotic attempts to limit the objects of violence. It just doesn’t work. You MUST focus on the problem, criminal activity, and not the tool. That’s why I’m so dead set against gun control. The law abiding are the only ones that follow these stupid laws. Let’s prosecute harm to others rather than try to pass rules like the government is all of the sudden your parent.
1 Like
It is what it is and I accept reality. Like the old saying goes, “You can’t talk your way out of a ticket but you sure can talk yourself into one”.
The same holds true with handcuffs and a night in jail.
As long as Qualified Immunity Exists it gives police broad powers to really screw with you on even the slightest provocation.
When you participate in a regulated activity such as driving, hunting, or lawfully carrying a firearm you’d better be ready to toe the line and be cooperative because if you are the last bit uncooperative and catch the wrong cop on the wrong day they can almost always find justification for slapping the cuffs on you and dragging you to jail.
Even if the charges don’t hold up it can still cost you thousands of dollars to beat them or get them dismissed. In the end you still end up with an arrest record that never goes away which can seriously impact your future.
And once again all of this is moot because you were identified as the MWAG in the call placed by the panicked woman.
At that point they are obligated to respond and you are obligated to show that you were not carrying unlawfully.
You got lucky, be happy with that but don’t count on it going that way the next time around.
You can repeat it all you want but you’re just flat out wrong. There is NO REQUIREMENT for me to prove I had a CHL when I had no gun on me when the cop stopped me. There is NO REQUIREMENT for me to prove I have a CHL just because some idiot panicked. I’m sorry bud but you’re just wrong. I’m not lucky, the cop knew what he was doing and acted appropriately after I pushed back. They have to have RAS to suggest I wasn’t carrying lawfully and a phone call doesn’t cut it. I showed you the relevant statutes that clearly show what’s required, but hey, you’re welcome to your opinion.
And again it didn’t matter whether you still had it when he got there, you did when the lady called it in.
Unlicensed carry is a felony and that’s what he was investigating, your only defense to prosecution is showing an LTC.
Argue all you want, you’re wrong, and you were very lucky.
This defeatist nonsense is what bothers me. The day I have to fear our police is the day it’s time for an armed revolution. People file suits and get judgements all the time for unlawful police activity. Video cameras have changed the good ole boy nonsense. I will NOT lick the boots of a cop just because I choose to engage in a constitutionally protected activity. Will I get thrown in jail? Maybe but I’ll break it off in their ass if they cross the legal line.
Nope. The onus is on HIM to prove I’m guilty, not me to prove I’m innocent. You have it backwards.
Let me ask you a stupid question.
A woman calls and says you murdered your kid. Do you have to show proof that the kid is alive to avoid arrest? That’s a very dangerous precedent, what if you don’t even HAVE a kid? What if she accuses you of killing an unnamed kid? Do you sit in jail till they can prove your innocence?
He does an investigation to find out if RAS exists to warrant an arrest. I have no duty to aid him in the investigation. Once he makes the arrest, THEN you have to ID. You can make this crap up all you want but you’re just flat out wrong. I’m sorry but that’s just a fact.
Yes in most cases that is exactly what would be required. They get a report, they have to investigate it.
RAS exists from the moment the report is made.
Keep in mind you can be taken into custody and held for up to 72hrs without being formally arrested and charged. RAS is all that is required for such a detention. The bar only raises to Probable Cause when they move to arrest and charge you.
Read the law.
The “panicked woman” is not a police officer. When the officer made the scene, he should have verified that a firearm was being carried before demanding to see ID and carry permit. @Texashusker is correct. You are wrong.
Possibly this could qualify as an entry in Ripley’s Believe It Or Not…@TWR made a mistake!
She isn’t required to be a police officer, she is the complainant and she identified him as carrying.
He got lucky. The cop would have been well within his rights to hook him up and hold him until it could be shown he was carrying lawfully.
Cops rarely arrive on scene while a crime is still in process but they are still within their rights to take anyone into custody that is identified as being the unlawful actor until it can be show that the identified individual is not the one committing a crime or it can be determined that no crime was committed.
Negative. RAS is NOT just a phone call from someone. He can temporarily detain me to do a brief investigation but he cannot arrest me based off of the word of a complainant alone. He HAS to be able to articulate facts to make an arrest.
And again, you don’t have to be arrested to be hauled to the station and detained for up to 72 hours without charge.
You’re still wrong. I didn’t get lucky, the cop followed the law and I’ve shown the relevant statutes. There was no RAS to believe that I had committed a felony beyond a single phone call. I wasn’t carrying a gun when he showed up. I wasn’t acting abnormal. I wasn’t trying to avoid him. There was no reason to believe a felony had occurred.
And you remain wrong. They had RAS as soon as the call was made.
The cop made a judgement call and you got lucky because of it.
You could have just as easily been placed under arrest if she was willing to sign a complaint and you were not willing to produce your LTC.
EDTA: I went back to your original narrative to be sure and yes, in that narrative you admitted you were carrying which is a felon absent the LTC. The onus at that point was on you to provide the LTC to show that no crime was being committed.
Again, based on your own story you got very lucky.