TexasCHLforum.com

Shoot Straight wrote:Getting fired is different than getting arrested and charged. That's a difference that's significant for everyone who carries despite an HR policy that doesn't conform to the 30.06 definition of notice.

We are talking 51% signs, not 30.06. For an LEO who violates departmental policy, it amounts to pretty much the same thing. He probably won't get charge or arrested, but the chances are his career as an LEO is finished.

WildBill wrote:For an LEO who violates departmental policy, it amounts to pretty much the same thing. He probably won't get charge or arrested, but the chances are his career as an LEO is finished.

It's the same for a taxpayer who gets fired because they violated their employer's policy.

Like I said. Getting fired is different than getting arrested and charged.

Shoot Straight wrote:

WildBill wrote:For an LEO who violates departmental policy, it amounts to pretty much the same thing. He probably won't get charge or arrested, but the chances are his career as an LEO is finished.

It's the same for a taxpayer who gets fired because they violated their employer's policy.

Like I said. Getting fired is different than getting arrested and charged.

It's the same for a taxpayer

I am not quite sure what you mean. Of course getting arrested versus getting fired is different. What I am saying is that getting fired for violating a company policy can mean more that just losing your job. In addition to just losing your current job, there can be future consequences.

That's what I was trying to get across.

If a LEO is fired for what they label moral turpitude, probably he will never work as a LEO again anywhere. There's also the ever-so-slight problem of losing his income and having to take three low-paying scut jobs to pay the bills. You can be sure his wife won't be thrilled if that happens as a result of his having been caught drinking in violation of agency policy.

It's not easy to get even a halfway decent job these days. I've heard of employers getting anywhere from 10 to 100 applications per opening.

- Jim

Interesting - a new story posted at 1:35 PM CST Feb 19th says that the officer was leaving a party at 5:30AM. The orginal story posted earlier that day says he was leaving Sherlock's Bar and Pub at 2:00AM. Very strange indeed.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/26924724/detail.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The cliché breaking news means sometimes it is broken.

Multiple stories posted as late at as hour ago say the incident took place around 2 a.m.

In any case, there is no implication that the officer was under the influence. At first hearing it sounds like his actions were justified.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 38724.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/lo ... bar-patron" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

It appears from the latest story that one man died in the hospital.
http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/lo ... bar-patron#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That happens sometimes when people are shot.

It does mean the incident will receive greater attention, including a grand jury hearing.

- Jim

Per the Chronicle story, apparently the officer had been drinking

Hoffman also said that while Coronado had been drinking, he was not intoxicated. He noted that HPD officers are not allowed to take police action if they have a measurable amount of alcohol in their system, but that his client was in a difficult position

So, the question will come up in the investigation if he was administered a breathalyser or not. While it sounds like this was a justifiable shooting by the accounts, he may still have to clear the question of how much alcohol he had in his system since he engaged the BG's.

As has been pointed out previously, the legal justifications for the use of force and deadly force do not require the defender to be sober, sane, a resident of Texas, or a U.S. citizen. It actually is not illegal for a LEO to be falling-down drunk (though it is for a non-LEO CHL holder).

Going by initial news reports is always chancy, but the description of a four-on-one assault and a man reaching for a weapon in his waistband makes it sound like a justified use of deadly force.

The officer may be in trouble for an administrative violation.

BTW, I'm sure this fact will annoy someone, but in the Revolutionary War era (late 18th century) alcohol consumption in the U.S. was at levels that today would be considered morbid. People drank whiskey for breakfast. They gave it to babies who were colicky or teething.

In other words, whiskey was no more regulated than firearms at that time.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:As has been pointed out previously, the legal justifications for the use of force and deadly force do not require the defender to be sober, sane, a resident of Texas, or a U.S. citizen. It actually is not illegal for a LEO to be falling-down drunk (though it is for a non-LEO CHL holder).

Going by initial news reports is always chancy, but the description of a four-on-one assault and a man reaching for a weapon in his waistband makes it sound like a justified use of deadly force.

The officer may be in trouble for an administrative violation.

BTW, I'm sure this fact will annoy someone, but in the Revolutionary War era (late 18th century) alcohol consumption in the U.S. was at levels that today would be considered morbid. People drank whiskey for breakfast. They gave it to babies who were colicky or teething.

In other words, whiskey was no more regulated than firearms at that time.

- Jim

Oh, oh. I have resorted to Whiskey on the gums of a squalling offspring-unit at least once or twice in the past.

Report to the re-education center at once.

I probably was also on the receiving end of some folk remedies when I was a baby. Now we have lidocaine and similar remedies.

- Jim

Purplehood wrote:

seamusTX wrote:BTW, I'm sure this fact will annoy someone, but in the Revolutionary War era (late 18th century) alcohol consumption in the U.S. was at levels that today would be considered morbid. People drank whiskey for breakfast. They gave it to babies who were colicky or teething.

In other words, whiskey was no more regulated than firearms at that time.

- Jim

Oh, oh. I have resorted to Whiskey on the gums of a squalling offspring-unit at least once or twice in the past.

From http://www.amazon.com/Safe-Baby-Handlin ... 0762424915