TexasCHLforum.com

johnson0317 wrote:I'm speechless

Don't mention it.


- Jim

A 22-year-old man was arrested on a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He is accused of striking a bar patron with a pistol:

http://galvestondailynews.com/story/314874" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

His name is given in the link but no other information such as residence or occupation.

- Jim

The person who allegedly did the pistol-whipping has not yet been arrested (as far as I know).

If he is charged with aggravated assault, having a firearm in a bar will not be his biggest problem. Agg. assault has something like a 20-year maximum sentence for a first offense.

Also, if you look at the timeline, there was enough time between the people being ejected from the bar and the assault for someone to have retrieved a weapon from a vehicle. That would make it difficult to sustain a charge of carrying a firearm in a bar.

- Jim

Every crime story like this comes from police reports. The reporter was not standing in front of the bar at 12:30 a.m. waiting for a fight to break out.

The name of the other guy who was arrested is in this article:

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/18143903/ ... bar-patron" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He is listed as a 22-year-old from Houston. I don't like to state the names of people in forum messages. Sometimes their friends and relative find them and throw a hissy fit.

- Jim

WildBill wrote:I just thought that it was interesting that the names were not reported.

I don't know why the name of the other guy that was arrested was not reported. It's public information unless he was a child (which is unlikely). You could go to the police station and get it.

Often they don't release the name of a suspect that has not been arrested. It takes a while to get a warrant issued, and sometimes the cops want to leave the guy guessing.

- Jim

Nobody said the other two guys were LEOs. They might have been fellow body-art enthusiasts or "furries."

There actually are only a few statutes in the penal code that apply only to LEOs. Mostly those have to do with places weapons prohibited and abuse of authority. Otherwise they have to obey the same laws as everyone else.

Penalties for stuff like drinking or conduct unbecoming are agency regulations.

- Jim

Keith B wrote:... you might be surprised at the number of people who witness something and are so dumbfounded that they don't even think to pick up the phone and call. This is usually on non-violent crimes or incidents, but it does happen on higher levels of crime.

I wouldn't be surprised. I have seen people stand there with their jaw gaping and do nothing.

However, one of the elements of the offense is that the person being charged has reason to believe that the crime has not been reported. If half the people on the scene immediately call 911 and the sirens are approaching, that is not the case.

OTOH, you have these cases where some shirt-tail relative shows up and says he needs your help because "something happened," and the "something" turns out to be a robbery or botched carjacking...

As for the mopes posting stuff on Youtube, I'm not talking about people who are minding their own business when a fight breaks out or a car crash occurs. I'm talking about the ones who know in advance that some thugs are going to stage a beat-down. They are actually accomplices, but being an accomplice or conspiracy are difficult to prove in court.

- Jim

Keith B wrote:I thank that was the intent Jim, but the way it is written will apply to anyone who would know that the crime was being committed but turn their backs and walk away without reporting it.

That would be essentially like prosecuting the people who ignored Kitty Genovese, if the incident had really happened the way that urban legend made out.

I never heard of it being used that way.

Now we have almost the opposite problem: When something like a robbery or assault occurs, 10 or 20 calls to 911 come in within seconds. Almost anything that makes a loud report, like firecrackers, results in reports of gunshots.

What people are arrested for often has nothing to do with what they are prosecuted for, if they are prosecuted. The point is only to get the person in custody. The victims were not in a position to file assault charges.

- Jim

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but this offense is used to prosecute people who were involved in a crime but did not commit the main criminal act. The guy who was arrested was not simply a bystander. He was allegedly involved in the fight.

Think of the mopes who make cell phone video of crimes and put them on YouTube without bothering to tell the police. Usually these people know who the perpetrators are and other material information.

- Jim

According to later reports, the suspect was not "flashing" in the usual sense. He was demonstrating body piercings that were, shall we say, south of his tan line.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 532112.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.click2houston.com/news/HPD-o ... /pb35wx/-/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also Mr. Dumas is not charged with the pistol-whipping. That was one of his companions, who was not arrested on the scene.

BTW, the name Dumas is French and pronounced "doo mah" in Gay Paree. I can't vouch for how Mr. Dumas pronounces it.

- Jim

Keith B wrote:Sure, the LEO MAY have more to lose, but maybe not. The LEO could be unmarried, living in an apartment and have rich parents that would pay all of his legal bills, so speculating on that part is hard to say.

You're right.

It tends to be taken into account at sentencing. That's when they can consider the guy's general character, get his pastor to swear what a great guy he is, etc. Or not.

Sometimes that goes wrong. There are people who talked their way out of a prison sentence and then went on to do worse things.

- Jim

Maybe I'm just a knee-jerk liberal at heart, but here's how I look at it:

—A habitually drunken mope who gets into a bar fight and stabs someone goes to prison maybe for a year. It's not his first time. It won't be his last. The taxpayers house and feed him for a while, and he gets out and does it again. Everyone knows that is all life holds for him.

—A cop who is convicted of a felony loses his job and any possibility of being a cop or holding any position of trust, ever. He's left with a bunch a legal bills and no income. Probably he loses his house. Maybe his wife dumps him. His family treats him like the proverbial black sheep. Probably most of his former friends are "busy" if he calls them.

That's a lot worse than just spending some time in the slammer.

- Jim

Keith, if, I repeat if, he is found guilty of aggravated assault, he does not deserve to be brutalized and killed by hardened gang members and career criminals in prison.

As I stated in another thread somewhere, if convicted of a felony his future career will involve a lawnmower or dirty dishes.

- Jim

I doubt they would put a former cop in Huntsville. He would be sent home in a box.

- Jim

I think it was a joke, Keith.

We all know a convicted felon cannot legally touch a firearm, let alone be a licensed LEO.

However, when you look at the pattern of conduct in some agencies, it seems there are a lot of unconvicted felons with badges. I'm talking about the places where cops are caught taking protection money from drug dealers and that kind of thing.

With an aggravated assault charge and two people hospitalized, I would say this guy has an uphill legal battle. The DA here is all business.

- Jim