Search found 9 matches

by Baytown
Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:04 pm
Forum: 2005 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: Goals for 2007
Replies: 74
Views: 19942

Some sort of enforcement action against cities who refuse to take down their 30.06 signs, knowing full well they are not valid.

Glenn
by Baytown
Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:00 pm
Forum: 2005 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: Goals for 2007
Replies: 74
Views: 19942

LOL!! The pay is a lot better than it used to be.

But would I like to make more money? "Sure, we all do!"--The now fat chick that used to be skinny from Archie Bunker (her name escapes me right now.)

Glenn
by Baytown
Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:39 am
Forum: 2005 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: Goals for 2007
Replies: 74
Views: 19942

As far as actual training, LEO's have minumum continuing education hours that they are required to take. I do not remember firearms training being required. Officers are required by the State to qual each year, and my dept requires two qual a year, one regular and one low-light.

LEO's also take Penal Code updates. IIRC the CHL class is more over PC and use of force, than actual gun training.

I think with LEOPA there will be less cops getting CHL's. I think the question of what level of CHL is moot, as they can carry anywhere anyway.

I have always thought about the price of a CHL and that is a good point that an advanced CHL would be even more expensive. Of course I should not be able to afford all the guns I buy. :roll:

Glenn
by Baytown
Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:08 am
Forum: 2005 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: Goals for 2007
Replies: 74
Views: 19942

+1 on the Advanced CHL. That is a great idea and one that I had never thought of.

Glenn
by Baytown
Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:19 pm
Forum: 2005 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: Goals for 2007
Replies: 74
Views: 19942

There is a legal definition:

PC 49.02 Public Intoxication

(a) A person commits an offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another.



We depend on officers to use their judgment and opinion on all sorts of situations. These officers receive training as to what intoxication is and learn more through experience. There are scientific tests - horizontal gaze nystagmus, and standardized field sobriety tests that can be conducted.

How many here would object to implied consent to SFST's or portable breath test? I bet most people would. There is even someone on here that was talking about breath test being illegal searches, etc...

Bottom line is, if you don't drink more than ONE DRINK, than you have nothing to worry about. If you drink more than ONE DRINK, then you are wrong, and you are on your own.

Glenn
by Baytown
Tue Jul 19, 2005 3:19 pm
Forum: 2005 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: Goals for 2007
Replies: 74
Views: 19942

I will continue my rant if I still have anyone reading.

If you want a glass of wine with dinner and carry a gun, great, I can live with that. It should be noted though, when we choose to carry a gun and not be a sheep, we have added responsibilities and sometimes we have to alter our conduct as well. There is nothing that says you have to have a beer or wine with dinner, but if you choose to do so, do not drink so much that you will be a danger to yourself or others in the opinion of an LEO.

How can someone make the argument they are carrying a gun for self defense, but yet voluntarily, induce a substance into your body that dulls your senses? If you are that concerned with personal safety, don't handicap yourself from the start.

Glenn
by Baytown
Tue Jul 19, 2005 3:12 pm
Forum: 2005 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: Goals for 2007
Replies: 74
Views: 19942

It is not pre-emptive policing if someone is already intoxicated in public. Should we let these criminals get into their cars and then try and stop them. No.

I think I will not do any more "pre-emptive" policing to avoid being compared to a gun grabber. I will wait for the hold-up guy to shoot the clerk when I drive up on an armed robbery. I would hate to shoot him because he was pointing a gun at her, because that would be pre-emptive. I am just assuming he is going to kill her, and that would be way too pre-emptive.

If that sounds stupid, well it is. So is letting a drunk sit in a bar and not arresting him. Should I assume he is not going to get into his car and go N/B on SH-146 and kill three children that were with mother and father. Dead is dead. A drunk driver that kills someone is not any different from a person who kills someone in a robbery. At least the robber had the motivation of money, the drunk killed someone because he lacked self-control and was too lazy and cheap to get a cab.

Do you know the amount of complaining people did when officers used to watch drunks get into their cars and wait for them to drive before they stopped them?

Glenn
by Baytown
Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:38 pm
Forum: 2005 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: Goals for 2007
Replies: 74
Views: 19942

Soapbox Mode On:

As a former bartender and current LEO, I will say that bars are for drinking and socializing, not for getting drunk in. Can you be drunk in a bar? You bet. Is it illegal? You bet. Under Texas law, a bar is a public place. I have no shame in saying I have arrested many out of bars for PI. It is amazing how many times you will go back to the bar after it closes and run the registrations and the veh comes back to the person you arrested. How were they going to get home? Taxi? -- Not likely. Is a person a danger to himself or others walking home and intoxicated? You bet. I have worked several accidents that were auto/ped majors. Guess what, it was because the drunk was in the street or trying to cross and a car was coming, etc... I would not call it overzealous policing, I would call it proactivity and saving drunks from themselves and others from those drunks.

Soapbox Off

Glenn
by Baytown
Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:03 pm
Forum: 2005 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: Goals for 2007
Replies: 74
Views: 19942

Chas. is right in that PI is very subjective. As long as an officer can articulate that you were a danger to yourself or others then you are in violation. I will say the articulation of being a danger will be made easier for the officer if you have a gun.

Ex.: Upon contacting defendant, I noted glassy, blood-shot eyes, and detected a moderate odor of an alcoholic beverage on or about his person. When asked his name, the def, responded with a thick tongue and slurred speech and had difficulty finding his DL in his wallet when it was requested. The def's had an untucked shirt and had pulled his tie down and had undone his top button of his shirt. A Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test was administered and 3 of 6 clues were found. Based on the facts that the def smelled of an alcoholic beverage, the results of the HGN, his slurred speech, and the fact the def was at the time in poss of a concealed handgun, I felt the def was a danger to himself and/or others and was instantered on citation# xxxxxx.

That being said, I do not believe one drink with dinner will cause a person to become PI. If you are in a shooting, then your BAC would be very low. Not that it would be a great thing to have to worry about, I would assume a good attorney could explain it away if need be.

Glenn

Return to “Goals for 2007”