TexasCHLforum.com

suthdj wrote:Wait didn't the homeowner say the dog belonged to the son who was away in college, not a police officer?

Correct, that is because at the time of the attack (about two years ago) he was in college. Now he is in the HPD.

trdvet wrote:

Kevinf2349 wrote:This isn't an LEO bash

Kevinf2349 wrote:Sometimes it seems like police officers live totally outside of the law they are supposed to uphold.

What does it matter if he had his gun on his ankle? I've seen plain clothes officers carry on their hip in court. Were you there or is this third party information?

As I said in my original thread it was a friend of mine, I wasn't there but I have no reason to doubt their observations. They are not taking anything any further they were just wanting to know if what they experienced as permissable.

Also the two quotes are not even in the same post and you have taken them entirely out of context.

I have not 'bashed' any individual officer just made a general observation.

What difference does it make what you have seen? You aren't a 14 year old girl who was already frightened of even have to be on court are you?

Thank you. That was pretty much what I told the friend too. Having had to go through the courts once, I doubt they want to get further involved in the HPD for a very long time again.

Sometimes it seems like police officers live totally outside of the law they are supposed to uphold.

This isn't an LEO bash, just a question that was asked of me today that I couldn't answer so I thought I would ask it here. So here goes.

A friend of mine as due in court on a case as the plaintiff against a dog owner whose dogs attacked and injured her daughter. The family who owned the dogs claimed to have no liability insurance and that the dog belonged to their son (who at the time was in college).

Anyway they didn't reach a settle ment at the disposition hearing (they wanted to settle for $1200) and so it went to court.

The case was this Tuesday and Wednesday in Houston. While the jury was being selected the son turned up. Sat back in his chair and a gun was seen in an ankle holder. Only after people started to stare and mention the gun did he tell the baliff that he was an off duty HPD policeman and he had a backup weapon.

Now I have no problem with him having an off duty weapon, but shouldn't it have been (and stayed) concealed?

How come a defendant (regradless of him being a policeman) can carry a weapon anyway?

Shouldn't he have declared the weapon before he intimidated the 14 year old girl and her parents?

This just seems wrong to me.

Any thoughts?