Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: A texan ccl holder arrested for a minor traffic violation

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213

    A texan ccl holder arrested for a minor traffic violation



    Mr Gonzalez was stopped for a traffic violation which escalated when he confessed that he is a CCL holder and is carrying. Cop called backup and guns were drawn and Mr. Gonzalez was cuffed for traffic violation. It seems that either policeman 'feared' for his life or they don't want Texans carrying or it just a lone incident of a policeman himself who does not believe in 2A. Maybe there is more to the story.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015...-carry-permit/

  2. #2
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613
    To me it seemed the officer got testy due to being asked the reason for the stop.


    Sent from my Sony Xperia using Tapatalk 4

  3. #3
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    Rosenburg used t/b an Imperial Sugar speedtrap, but now just part of the Houston 150 mile across blob.

    PD is standing by actions, but this story mentions at the end the Arresting cop no longer works for Rosenburg....

    http://m.click2houston.com/news/rose...laint/36554590


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    He told KPRC 2, "Asked questions. By asking questions, you're automatically labeled as argumentative. And having a weapon on you automatically makes you dangerous."
    I know from experience that asking questions you're automatically labeled as argumentative and will be arrested.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    I know from experience that asking questions you're automatically labeled as argumentative and will be arrested.
    So true ! I don't care. Call me anything but late for dinner !

  6. #6
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Replying "I noticed you didn't stop at that traffic signal" or "I observed you exceeding the speed limit" takes just as little time as saying "I'll tell you when I'm good and gawd-damned ready." Reserving the answer only enables the officer to exhibit more control over the motorist, which some seem to enjoy displaying.

  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    "The officer's actions were within policy," said Lt. William Henry of the Rosenberg Police Department.
    Then...
    Lt. Henry said, "We don't target people with handgun licenses. We don't target gun owners in general. Any responsible gun owner...we're not out targeting people like that. As far as what the officer perceived, the officer perceived a threat."
    What?

    Liar liar pants on fire! Well, we don't "target" people with handgun licenses, or gun owners in general...now.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  8. #8
    Regular Member Griz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by rscottie View Post
    To me it seemed the officer got testy due to being asked the reason for the stop.
    it's been my experience that given due time, they will tell you why you were stopped. usually in the form of, "the reason I pulled you over..."

    you can then politely refute that statement, but probably not to any positive effect.

  9. #9
    Regular Member CrossFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Irving, Texas, USA
    Posts
    408
    My experience has been the officer asking "Do you know why I pulled you over?" as an attempt to get you to confess to wrong doing up front.

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Officer - Do you know why I pulled you over?

    Driver - Well officer, if you don't know then that makes two of us......

    Driver - Well officer, your lost and you need someone to help you find your way home.

    Driver - Well officer, you wanted to warn me of some danger ahead.

    Driver - Well officer, you wanted to compliment me on my superior driving abilities.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Officer - Do you know why I pulled you over?

    Driver - Well officer, if you don't know then that makes two of us......

    Driver - Well officer, your lost and you need someone to help you find your way home.

    Driver - Well officer, you wanted to warn me of some danger ahead.

    Driver - Well officer, you wanted to compliment me on my superior driving abilities.
    Officer: Just making sure you didn't have a gun.
    Driver: I do have a gun.
    Officer: (thinking to himself) Dam the2A.(out loud) Let me see those hands! Keep them in the air. Get out, you are under arrest!
    Driver: I have a CCL
    Officer: I don't care this is a big city and it is a war zone! We don't know who is good and who is bad! I'll confiscate your gun. You'll have to go to court to get it out.
    Driver: But officer..
    Officer: I feared for my life... I don't care if you have a CCL.. You go to jail and let the system figure you out. I got my end taken care of.
    Last edited by Law abider; 11-20-2015 at 07:12 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    I'm trying to remember, I think in Texas there are exactly two traffic violations for which an officer has to give you the option of signing a promise to appear. For all others, as far as I know, they always have the option of arrest instead of cite. There may be case law that restricts them more than statute, though. Someone has eluded that something like this was the case, but I couldn't even begin to validate or cite any supporting evidence.

    I think the two listed in statute for which an officer must offer the option to sign a promise to appear are speeding and open container violations.

    If I am correct about this, it is just one more thing to add to the long, long list of things that need to be fixed in Texas statutes. I mean, do we really think an officer should be able to, at their "discretion," arrest a person for something like their blinker bulb went out and they didn't know?

    Edit: Regarding not answering questions, or asking your own questions, I guess your mileage may vary. I've "refused" (making an effort to be quite polite about it) to answer questions once during a traffic stop, and received just a warning. The officer suggested that it took him off guard a bit, but he didn't consider it rude or hostile.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 11-20-2015 at 09:11 PM.
    Advocate freedom please

  13. #13
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    Did anyone notice that this is over a year old? Surely it has been resolved by now. Why is this just now coming out on "The Blaze"?
    Popssibly because according to one report, he only recently received the dashcam video requested in the open records request? It's in the state's best interest to draw this out as long as possible, right?
    http://www.click2houston.com/news/dr...nberg/36532140
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 11-21-2015 at 01:43 AM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Looks like all the publicity spurred the department to make a statement: "In light of the recent media publicity regarding the traffic arrest of an armed CHL holder, we felt compelled to make a statement. The Rosenberg Police Department supports our 2nd Amendment rights, and all CHL holders. Please do not allow an isolated incident or the actions of one Officer to tarnish the image of the entire Agency. The arresting Officer is no longer employed with our Department. We stand with our Community."
    Advocate freedom please

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Looks like all the publicity spurred the department to make a statement: "In light of the recent media publicity regarding the traffic arrest of an armed CHL holder, we felt compelled to make a statement. The Rosenberg Police Department supports our 2nd Amendment rights, and all CHL holders. Please do not allow an isolated incident or the actions of one Officer to tarnish the image of the entire Agency. The arresting Officer is no longer employed with our Department. We stand with our Community."
    If that is not an admittance of the officers wrong doing then I don't know what is.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    I'm trying to remember, I think in Texas there are exactly two traffic violations for which an officer has to give you the option of signing a promise to appear. For all others, as far as I know, they always have the option of arrest instead of cite. There may be case law that restricts them more than statute, though. Someone has eluded that something like this was the case, but I couldn't even begin to validate or cite any supporting evidence.

    I think the two listed in statute for which an officer must offer the option to sign a promise to appear are speeding and open container violations.
    You are correct on all of the above. And even for those two, the officer only has to ask one time for a signature; if refused (and "refused" includes anything other than immediately signing), even those two offenses are subject to custodial arrest.

    A bit of Texas law:
    - Every traffic stop constitutes an arrest; at the end of the stop, the driver is either released without charges, charged and signs a personal recognizance bond in the form of a Promise To Appear (the ticket), or taken into custody.
    - Every violation of the Texas Transportation Code is a crime, of Class C misdemeanor or greater.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    If that is not an admittance of the officers wrong doing then I don't know what is.
    I think.... it is how you slice the pie.

    Legally his actions were within the law and policies.
    BUT his actions were not what the agency wants as a public image.

    Thus they politic a statement that admits no legal fault yet conveys the problem has been dealt with.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Does TX have language in any particular statute or any number of statutes such as this:
    RSMo 571.121. 1. ... Failure to comply with this subsection shall not be a criminal offense but the concealed carry permit or endorsement holder may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed thirty-five dollars.
    It is not often in MO statutes that a criminal offense is "converted" into a mere infraction and thus the "violator" is not (can not be) subject to arrest.

    But, there is then this:
    RSMo 544.216 ... may arrest on view, and without a warrant, any person the officer sees violating or who such officer has reasonable grounds to believe has violated any ordinance or law of this state, including a misdemeanor or infraction, over which such officer has jurisdiction. ...
    Vexing and why cops are permitted to be held harmless for any number abuses that they may subject the citizenry to.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    RSMo 544.216 ... may arrest on view, and without a warrant, any person the officer sees violating or who such officer has reasonable grounds to believe has violated any ordinance or law of this state, including a misdemeanor or infraction, over which such officer has jurisdiction. ...
    But, there is then this: Vexing and why cops are permitted to be held harmless for any number abuses that they may subject the citizenry to.
    Not in Ohio. Only under very specific statutes can an arrest without a warrant happen. If an officer did not see the crime, other than a felony, an arrest without a warrant is unlawful. If, however, an affidavit by a citizen who claims a crime happened is secured then an arrest my happen.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Turbod'1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Henderson, NV now Texas. I move a lot.
    Posts
    184
    New to the Texas forum but not "new": It's my understanding that one can have a firearm in their vehicle, without permit, as long as it's concealed [please correct me if I'm wrong]: must one disclose, as part of the permit process, that they have a CHL when pulled over?

  21. #21
    Regular Member qednick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bandera, TX
    Posts
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbod'1 View Post
    New to the Texas forum but not "new": It's my understanding that one can have a firearm in their vehicle, without permit, as long as it's concealed [please correct me if I'm wrong]: must one disclose, as part of the permit process, that they have a CHL when pulled over?
    Correct. Without a license, you can have a "concealed" weapon in your vehicle so long as you're not a prohibited possessor, in the process of committing a crime, or a member of a criminal gang. If you do have a license and get pulled over, yes you should give the LEO your license along with driver's license and make clear to him/her you are carrying. If it's at night, turn on the overhead dome light so the officer knows you are likely a carrier.

  22. #22
    Regular Member qednick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bandera, TX
    Posts
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    You are correct on all of the above. And even for those two, the officer only has to ask one time for a signature; if refused (and "refused" includes anything other than immediately signing), even those two offenses are subject to custodial arrest.

    A bit of Texas law:
    - Every traffic stop constitutes an arrest; at the end of the stop, the driver is either released without charges, charged and signs a personal recognizance bond in the form of a Promise To Appear (the ticket), or taken into custody.
    - Every violation of the Texas Transportation Code is a crime, of Class C misdemeanor or greater.

    That's how I understood it also. A simple traffic stop is an actual "arrest". There's no in between, no "simply being detained", yada yada. You're either under arrest or you're not. So, until the cop let's you leave, or leads you off in handcuffs (for whatever reason), you are still technically "arrested" during the stop.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Turbod'1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Henderson, NV now Texas. I move a lot.
    Posts
    184

    Unhappy

    Quote Originally Posted by qednick View Post
    Correct. Without a license, you can have a "concealed" weapon in your vehicle so long as you're not a prohibited possessor, in the process of committing a crime, or a member of a criminal gang. If you do have a license and get pulled over, yes you should give the LEO your license along with driver's license and make clear to him/her you are carrying. If it's at night, turn on the overhead dome light so the officer knows you are likely a carrier.
    OK, good to have vetted.

    Quote Originally Posted by qednick View Post
    That's how I understood it also. A simple traffic stop is an actual "arrest". There's no in between, no "simply being detained", yada yada. You're either under arrest or you're not. So, until the cop let's you leave, or leads you off in handcuffs (for whatever reason), you are still technically "arrested" during the stop.
    So, Texas has no "Detained"? How is it that they respect the 2nd but not the 4th?

    So confused...

  24. #24
    Regular Member qednick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bandera, TX
    Posts
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbod'1 View Post
    OK, good to have vetted.



    So, Texas has no "Detained"? How is it that they respect the 2nd but not the 4th?

    So confused...
    Honestly not sure either is truly respected.

  25. #25
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    He means in the context of a traffic stop, not in general. Texas peace officers can and certainly will detain folks. I'm not sure the "arrested not detained" bit applies in a solid 100% of times that one is pulled over while driving. I think, maybe, there could feasibly be a circumstance where one could be driving, and an officer have RAS to stop and detain them, but not PC to arrest them (such as observation of a transportation code violation.) It may just be the case that usually if someone is being stopped while driving, it is because the officer observed them violating the transportation code, and so in most cases it would be an arrest instead of a detainment. I could be wrong, it'd be nice if a lawyer could be asked.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 12-08-2015 at 07:50 AM. Reason: clarification
    Advocate freedom please

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •