TexasCHLforum.com

To sum up the entirety of law enforcement as "it's a cops job to carry a gun" is laughable.

There's a tad bit more to it than that. A more interesting (tangential) thought is how well of a dwi case could be built against an officer or criminal attorney. Perhaps Mr Rothstein can further my speculation, but I think those with knowledge of the system would be a tough case. It is possible to give little to no evidence of being intoxicated when stopped for a traffic stop.

It's off topic. Bottom line is I know my dept wouldn't keep someone with a dwi conviction. Even if they weren't convicted, but the IA investigation showed that they did it, I bet they would be canned. In an ideal world this would be the norm...I can't speak for Podunk PD or NCSO (nowhere county so).

austinrealtor wrote:But do they deserve a different set of standards under the law for what level of criminal offense will result in the suspension of their 2A rights?

No. There should be one standard. If it's bad for a wife-beater to carry a gun in public, it's as bad (maybe worse) for him to carry a gun and a badge. Same with a drunk driver or tax cheat.

My problem is the "guilty until proven innocent" standard of suspending someone's license before the state proves them guilty.

gigag04 wrote:There's a tad bit more to it than that. A more interesting (tangential) thought is how well of a dwi case could be built against an officer or criminal attorney. Perhaps Mr Rothstein can further my speculation, but I think those with knowledge of the system would be a tough case. It is possible to give little to no evidence of being intoxicated when stopped for a traffic stop.

Anyone who knows the system can make it very hard to prove a case against them until they have a fatality accident (mandatory blood draw). This is one reason it is hard to get convictions on multiple-repeat (4 or 5 times) DWI offenders. They get to know exactly what to do and say when stopped to help destroy the case. Prosecutors and defense lawyers generally (in my experience) rely on professional courtesy and knowledge of the plea bargaining system.

In this case, the officer was disciplined more harshly than other officers in the same department for the same offense, which is a no-no. The department must maintain some standards of equality in the discipline process. You may be able to justify more harsh discipline on a repeat offender if the offenses are similar, but I am fairly sure that this officer was able to show (or at least credibly claim) that he was punished for the shooting and embarrassing the PD administration more than the DWI.

As for what the punishment should be, we should wait and see if he is convicted. As much as I hate seeing people I think are guilty get off, our whole system of justice is based on the prosecution proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. If he is convicted, or even gets deferred adjudication, the officer is out of a job/career since he loses his license. If he is not convicted, why should the department take any action against him? In all honesty, it had nothing to do with the department.

srothstein wrote:Anyone who knows the system can make it very hard to prove a case against them until they have a fatality accident (mandatory blood draw). This is one reason it is hard to get convictions on multiple-repeat (4 or 5 times) DWI offenders. They get to know exactly what to do and say when stopped to help destroy the case.

This, IMO, is why we need to be revoking licenses permanently no later than the third offense, with extremely tough penalties for driving with a revoked license.

Well, yesterday he was un-instated.

HankB wrote:Police officers have far more training in the law than most of us, and are given far, FAR more authority than the rest of us. Why? Because it's their job to carry a gun. So we demand they be held to a high standard as regards their personal conduct.

That's a ridiculous statement. They are given the authority so that they can make arrests and/or lawfully detain citizens while investigating potential criminal activity. Guns have nothing to do with it other than the fact that they are one of the tools that police officers are allowed to use to do their jobs. Their job isn't to run around shooting their gun. It's to secure public safety and ensure that the laws are obeyed. Many officers serve honorably for their entire careers without ever unholstering their weapon in the course of their work, except for firearms training. (A CHL holder should hope they can claim the same feat when they pass away, btw.)

baldeagle wrote:

HankB wrote:Police officers have far more training in the law than most of us, and are given far, FAR more authority than the rest of us. Why? Because it's their job to carry a gun. So we demand they be held to a high standard as regards their personal conduct.

That's a ridiculous statement. They are given the authority so that they can make arrests and/or lawfully detain citizens while investigating potential criminal activity. Guns have nothing to do with it other than the fact that they are one of the tools that police officers are allowed to use to do their jobs. Their job isn't to run around shooting their gun. It's to secure public safety and ensure that the laws are obeyed. Many officers serve honorably for their entire careers without ever unholstering their weapon in the course of their work, except for firearms training. (A CHL holder should hope they can claim the same feat when they pass away, btw.)

In support of your statement, the London police only recently started carrying firearms for day to day patrolling.

The saga continues................

Police chief fires Quintana again, officials say

Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo today fired officer Leonardo Quintana for a second time in five months and less than a week after an arbitrator reinstated him to the force, according to police union officials.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/ ... na_ag.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hoosier Daddy wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:But do they deserve a different set of standards under the law for what level of criminal offense will result in the suspension of their 2A rights?

No. There should be one standard. If it's bad for a wife-beater to carry a gun in public, it's as bad (maybe worse) for him to carry a gun and a badge. Same with a drunk driver or tax cheat.

They weren't married.

According to the linked story, Leonardo Quintana "assaulted his former girlfriend and didn’t tell his supervisors he was involved in an incident that required a police response."

baldeagle wrote:

HankB wrote:Police officers have far more training in the law than most of us, and are given far, FAR more authority than the rest of us. Why? Because it's their job to carry a gun. So we demand they be held to a high standard as regards their personal conduct.

That's a ridiculous statement. They are given the authority so that they can make arrests and/or lawfully detain citizens while investigating potential criminal activity. Guns have nothing to do with it other than the fact that they are one of the tools that police officers are allowed to use to do their jobs. Their job isn't to run around shooting their gun. It's to secure public safety and ensure that the laws are obeyed. Many officers serve honorably for their entire careers without ever unholstering their weapon in the course of their work, except for firearms training. (A CHL holder should hope they can claim the same feat when they pass away, btw.)

You seem to have missed the point entirely. The badge and gun are essential symbols of their authority. The gun is also a tool to enforce that authority - it's presence on their belt is what gives weight to that authority. If they didn't have guns, they'd be largely ignored, the butt of jokes, with nicknames less respectful than "mall ninja."

Remember the old adage "Si vis pacem, para bellum?" Same general principle here - they're prepared to use the gun; everyone knows it, so they seldom have to. And the general populace expects that they will act reasonably. (And a record of being a drunk greatly reduces confidence in the officer's good judgement.)

Without guns, I'd like to see them " . . . secure public safety and ensure that the laws are obeyed." especially in the nastier parts of Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and even down by the Mexican border.