Mike D and LEO's .. question..

[tvc184]

Understood. My question was to the fact that when I've been pulled over and not disarmed or searched I notified the officer that my weapon was secured somewhere other than on me.

And I wonder if that's why I was not searched or disarmed.

Either way my only activity that could justify being pulled over was a simple traffic offense (i.e. speeding).

Officer discretion. Apparently the officer(s) felt no need to go any further with it and didn't feel threatened.

[gatorgar]

Vortech, I think the only reason he handcuffed me was because he felt threatened. Might be because, when he asked if I had anything in me that could harm him, I said,"my pen, if I really wanted too, I could seriously put the hurt on you with that." Well that and I had him by about 50lbs. Whatever his reason, I knew I was in the clear and getting handcuffed is not new to me and no cause for distress. (I am often confused for another person with my name that is wanted on drug charges, makes crossing back to the States interesting at times, lol)

[systemnt]

Might be because, when he asked if I had anything in me that could harm him, I said,"my pen, if I really wanted too, I could seriously put the hurt on you with that."

crap..scratchin' another answer off the list....

[Bily Lovec]

I just remembered this
Chew can verify for the haters

I had a $1200 stolen pistol recovered in this exact manner.
Cops pulled an illegal over.
he had my pistol.
HCSD ran the numbers and it came back stolen from me.
Chew had it back in my hands within a week or two.
Harris county prosocuter refused to file charges against the illegal who had my stolen pistol because he said he bought it from "some guy on a bike"
illegal was released, not deported.

[systemnt]

I just remembered this
Chew can verify for the haters

I had a $1200 stolen pistol recovered in this exact manner.
Cops pulled an illegal over.
he had my pistol.
HCSD ran the numbers and it came back stolen from me.
Chew had it back in my hands within a week or two.
Harris county prosocuter refused to file charges against the illegal who had my stolen pistol because he said he bought it from "some guy on a bike"
illegal was released, not deported.

What happened to that little law about "..in possession of stolen property"?

[tvc184]

What happened to that little law about "..in possession of stolen property"?

There is no such law.

Being in possession of stolen property is certain probable cause for an arrest but there is no Texas law for possession of stolen property. There is only "theft". Proof in court that the person with the stolen property was the one that stole it ("appropriate" in the PC) beyond a reasonable doubt does not come from mere possession.

Let's say that you buy a gun from this forum in the classified ads (which happens frequently). Later the cops stop you and find out that gun was stolen. Jail time for you for "possession"?

[Bily Lovec]

What happened to that little law about "..in possession of stolen property"?

you'll love this.

Not enough evidence....

I assume they prosecute based on how much time they can get the ****.
The guy was trespassing when he was detained/arrested, possession of stolen property AND an illegal to boot and it wasnt worth the DA's time to prosecute.

I wasnt pleased, I wrote a strongly worded letter to the HCDA.

all the officers involved did their jobs, they had their cases made. the DA wasnt interested.



thanks TVC for adding to the explanation.

[tvc184]

It is not what we know or think we know but what can be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

It sucks though when your stolen property is recovered and you/we believe that we have the guilty person but can't prove it. In my county they likely would not have taken the case and do not take such cases as there simply is no proof of who the person(s) is that actually stole the property.

Like I said, it does suck though and I have been there making the arrests in such cases only to see the person walk.

[vortech347]

Officer discretion. Apparently the officer(s) felt no need to go any further with it and didn't feel threatened.

That's what I figured. I try to be as polite and non-threatening as possible when dealing with officers.

I may not be real happy about it but they are just doing their jobs and they don't need any hassle out of me.

[macoop]

How many?

i wonder how many CHL holders they have found in posession of a stolen firearm? Probably not very many? Sounds like a show of authority to me.

I know LEO's have a tough job...I do too and it is also life threatening but I don't go around asking questions that would insinuate that someone had done something wrong unless I had a reason to think so. I would think that a CHL holder that had spent the time and money to go through training, the **** exam, background check, the purchase of a holster to carry concealed, possibly a new firearm, etc., etc., would be the guy that the cops would NOT be needing to run a serial number check on his weapon. Not saying it doesn't ever come up stolen but from what some of the people on here are saying, there is some regularity for CHL's to have their weapons run for stolen property.

[systemnt]

There is no such law.

Being in possession of stolen property is certain probable cause for an arrest but there is no Texas law for possession of stolen property. There is only "theft". Proof in court that the person with the stolen property was the one that stole it ("appropriate" in the PC) beyond a reasonable doubt does not come from mere possession.

Let's say that you buy a gun from this forum in the classified ads (which happens frequently). Later the cops stop you and find out that gun was stolen. Jail time for you for "possession"?

This intrigues me because I have seen and read several court docketts that contained charges of "possession of stolen property".. how can one be charged with an offense if there isn't a law against it?

sent by tapatalk on my Droid...fo'schnizzel

[systemnt]

Nevermind.. I reread your explanation and that makes sense in those instances..I guess..

sent by tapatalk on my Droid...fo'schnizzel

[mitchbcs]

ahhh.. that actually makes sense....
kind of a run-around but still makes sense..
thanks

crap..keegan made sense...

I really hate when that guy is right

[tvc184]

This intrigues me because I have seen and read several court docketts that contained charges of "possession of stolen property".. how can one be charged with an offense if there isn't a law against it?

sent by tapatalk on my Droid...fo'schnizzel

I have no clue. Were they Texas courts?

A long time ago I read some old cases that were listed, "Theft by Possession". There is no such charge and a lot of that was thrown out by Texas appeals courts.

The word "possession" is only listed in Theft (PC 31.03)for the purposes of an enhanced penalty when the stolen property came into "possession" of the actor (thief) by reason of his employment as a public servant, government contract worker or Medicare provider.

[tvc184]

Nevermind.. I reread your explanation and that makes sense in those instances..I guess..

sent by tapatalk on my Droid...fo'schnizzel

NOW you tell me after I already responded again.