TexasCHLforum.com

Once the music stops and the smoke clears, I suspect that we're gonna' find this whole thing is about more than 2A rights and signage. The word "impaired" keeps floating around my head and that word is compounded by the phrase "judgementally impaired" as applied to Texas statutes.

Call me a wimp if you must but if I called the EMT's to the house because Mrs. Oldgringo had drank herself into a sick stupor, with my help, and the LEO told me not to take my piece to the hospital, I would have said', "thank you" and headed to the hospital. You?

Oldgringo wrote:Once the music stops and the smoke clears, I suspect that we're gonna' find this whole thing is about more than 2A rights and signage. The word "impaired" keeps floating around my head and that word is compounded by the phrase "judgementally impaired" as applied to Texas statutes.

Call me a wimp if you must but if I called the EMT's to the house because Mrs. Oldgringo had drank herself into a sick stupor, with my help, and the LEO told me not to take my piece to the hospital, I would have said', "thank you" and headed to the hospital. You?

You may be right. I don't even remember how the LEO knew about the gun at the house.

Assuming that the officer actually DID tell the soldier not to bring his gun to the hospital ... by what authority did he do so?

WildBill wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Once the music stops and the smoke clears, I suspect that we're gonna' find this whole thing is about more than 2A rights and signage. The word "impaired" keeps floating around my head and that word is compounded by the phrase "judgementally impaired" as applied to Texas statutes.

Call me a wimp if you must but if I called the EMT's to the house because Mrs. Oldgringo had drank herself into a sick stupor, with my help, and the LEO told me not to take my piece to the hospital, I would have said', "thank you" and hauled A to the hospital. You?

You may be right. I don't even remember how the LEO knew about the gun at the house.

OK Guys, if he was impaired, how did he get to the hospital?
Did Wyatt Earp allow him to drive? If so thats VERY bad!
Why wasn't he charged with public intox at the hospital? No field test, no blood test?
Hospital wasn't posted.
LEO had no reason to search since only saw a bludge. They don't count under the statute.
Case falling apart, law suit coming. Illegal search and all that stuff.
Now the impaired thing comes up?

This smells worse than an Indiana hog farm.

WildBill wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Once the music stops and the smoke clears, I suspect that we're gonna' find this whole thing is about more than 2A rights and signage. The word "impaired" keeps floating around my head and that word is compounded by the phrase "judgementally impaired" as applied to Texas statutes.

Call me a wimp if you must but if I called the EMT's to the house because Mrs. Oldgringo had drank herself into a sick stupor, with my help, and the LEO told me not to take my piece to the hospital, I would have said', "thank you" and headed to the hospital. You?

You may be right. I don't even remember how the LEO knew about the gun at the house.

my guess would be the officer asked for ID and was given dl and chl.

2firfun50 wrote: OK Guys, if he was impaired, how did he get to the hospital?
Did Wyatt Earp allow him to drive? If so thats VERY bad!

I like the way you think.

C-dub wrote:

2firfun50 wrote: OK Guys, if he was impaired, how did he get to the hospital?
Did Wyatt Earp allow him to drive? If so thats VERY bad!

I like the way you think.

Given the fact that the officer was already at the hospital when our friend arrived, my guess would be the officer left at the same time as the ambulance - before our friend left. It is also possible that our friend did not drive but was driven by someone else.

We simply do not have enough facts to do anything other than speculate. I'm willing to bet that everything comes out in the wash.

jmra wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Once the music stops and the smoke clears, I suspect that we're gonna' find this whole thing is about more than 2A rights and signage. The word "impaired" keeps floating around my head and that word is compounded by the phrase "judgementally impaired" as applied to Texas statutes.

Call me a wimp if you must but if I called the EMT's to the house because Mrs. Oldgringo had drank herself into a sick stupor, with my help, and the LEO told me not to take my piece to the hospital, I would have said', "thank you" and headed to the hospital. You?

You may be right. I don't even remember how the LEO knew about the gun at the house.

my guess would be the officer asked for ID and was given dl and chl.

Ooh, interesting side question. The soldier would have been at home when the officer responded to the original call and that's where he would have been asked for ID. So, am I required by law when asked for ID inside my home or on my property to inform or provide my CHL to the officer? I don't think I am, but it might be foolish not to.

C-dub wrote:So, am I required by law when asked for ID inside my home or on my property to inform or provide my CHL to the officer? I don't think I am, but it might be foolish not to.

If you're armed when the peace officer demands ID, you're required to display both, but now it has the same penalty as DPS not issuing CHL plastic within the mandated time limit.

bizarrenormality wrote:

C-dub wrote:So, am I required by law when asked for ID inside my home or on my property to inform or provide my CHL to the officer? I don't think I am, but it might be foolish not to.

If you're armed when the peace officer demands ID, you're required to display both, but now it has the same penalty as DPS not issuing CHL plastic within the mandated time limit.

Oh, I absolutely understand that the penalty has been removed for not displaying my CHL, but like the MPA, I and neither does anyone else require a CHL to be carrying at or in their home and my ID might be sitting on my nightstand and not on my person.

C-dub wrote:

jmra wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Once the music stops and the smoke clears, I suspect that we're gonna' find this whole thing is about more than 2A rights and signage. The word "impaired" keeps floating around my head and that word is compounded by the phrase "judgementally impaired" as applied to Texas statutes.

Call me a wimp if you must but if I called the EMT's to the house because Mrs. Oldgringo had drank herself into a sick stupor, with my help, and the LEO told me not to take my piece to the hospital, I would have said', "thank you" and headed to the hospital. You?

You may be right. I don't even remember how the LEO knew about the gun at the house.

my guess would be the officer asked for ID and was given dl and chl.

Ooh, interesting side question. The soldier would have been at home when the officer responded to the original call and that's where he would have been asked for ID. So, am I required by law when asked for ID inside my home or on my property to inform or provide my CHL to the officer? I don't think I am, but it might be foolish not to.

I'm not saying he was required to, just betting that is what happened. I would also bet that there were a number of questions asked about guns in the home, where are they located, ...

jmra wrote:

C-dub wrote:

jmra wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Once the music stops and the smoke clears, I suspect that we're gonna' find this whole thing is about more than 2A rights and signage. The word "impaired" keeps floating around my head and that word is compounded by the phrase "judgementally impaired" as applied to Texas statutes.

Call me a wimp if you must but if I called the EMT's to the house because Mrs. Oldgringo had drank herself into a sick stupor, with my help, and the LEO told me not to take my piece to the hospital, I would have said', "thank you" and headed to the hospital. You?

You may be right. I don't even remember how the LEO knew about the gun at the house.

my guess would be the officer asked for ID and was given dl and chl.

Ooh, interesting side question. The soldier would have been at home when the officer responded to the original call and that's where he would have been asked for ID. So, am I required by law when asked for ID inside my home or on my property to inform or provide my CHL to the officer? I don't think I am, but it might be foolish not to.

I'm not saying he was required to, just betting that is what happened. I would also bet that there were a number of questions asked about guns in the home, where are they located, ...

and the correct answer to that is noneya, fact of the matter is that an adverse reaction to medication does NOT warrent any questions about fire arms, movies, or anything else except what meds and how much of what alcohol period. anyone that excuses the officer and his attemp to control anyone is well..... you know. This with the available information is nothing more than a witch hunt, gotta make sure the cop is right and the DA seems to grasping at anything that will help keep the cop from looking foolish and embarressing the DA and City leadership.

JP171 wrote: and the correct answer to that is noneya, fact of the matter is that an adverse reaction to medication does NOT warrent any questions about fire arms, movies, or anything else except what meds and how much of what alcohol period. anyone that excuses the officer and his attemp to control anyone is well..... you know. This with the available information is nothing more than a witch hunt, gotta make sure the cop is right and the DA seems to grasping at anything that will help keep the cop from looking foolish and embarressing the DA and City leadership.

I'm not saying I agree with that line of questioning, just saying I bet it happened.

If I remember correctly the soldier said that he and his wife had not been fighting and that the officer said not to have any weapons around the girl. This tells me that the officer might have initially suspected domestic violence and/or a suicide attempt. If so, there would definitely have been questions about guns in the home.

JM,

The questions about weapons may seem valid on the surface, however the medic should advise the LEO as the medic probably has a better line on suicidal ideology than the officer, extrapiramidal reactions are not usually the cause of concerne to suicidal ideation, should the woman have a history of similar behavior the medic should know and move toward that DX, however with the available info this seems like the LEO ran the DL of all parties involved and made a blanket statement or order(civilian leo can't give orders) or directive that was not followed, we have no duty to follow such directives on the 3 3 rule 3 seconds or 3 feet. I am not really being as bad as you might think but I dislike the attitude that civilians must do as the LEO says cause he ain't a civilian(yes he/she is cause they ain't military) the leo gets upset because he or she believes that they have absolute authority and control over another civilian and contemp of cop applies, but there is no such charge or law or rule, a LEO is a CIVILIAN period, I have the right to ignore anything he says period, just can't interfere with him doing his job.

No argument here.