Driver (w/chl) in officer-involved wreck charged

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Rex B
Senior Member
Posts: 3616
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Driver (w/chl) in officer-involved wreck charged

Post by Rex B »

loadedliberal wrote:
HankB wrote:
srothstein wrote:
HankB wrote:
"Kimberly Woods Shipper, a nurse at Hunstville Memorial Hospital, was arrested at work Thursday evening on a charge of intoxicated assault on a peace officer . . . "
. . . Intoxication assault is normally a 3rd degree felony (significantly higher than a starting DWI). But PC 49.09 increases the grade of offense to a 2nd Degree felony if the injured person is a peace officer or fire fighter in the line of duty.
Thank you for the explanation . . . I don't like drunk drivers, especially when they hurt people.

BUT . . . were I on the jury, there is NO WAY I would convict someone of "enhanced" charges because the person injured happened to be a government employee. If a 3rd degree felony is a sufficiently serious charge to prosecute when a drunk runs over Joe Taxpayer, it's also sufficiently serious if the injured party draws a government paycheck.
Im inclined to agree, I am not ok with enhanced charges just because he is a police officer, now had she done it BECAUSE he was a police officer I could see justifying the greater charges, I do no like elevating anyone to a higher class regardless of occupation. He was at the wrong place at the wrong time, its a sad but true reality that people die from intoxicated drivers every day, a police officers life is no more valuable the anyone else's, transgressions of the law should be treated equally under the law, regardless of who the victim was;
:iagree:
{She} was on her way back from the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo. I'm curious as to whether or not she attended the rodeo while carrying, which we all know is a huge no-no.
How so? If it's like the Ft Worth show, you pay general admission to get into the stock show, Midway etc, but you have a separate ticket to buy to go to the pro rodeo. So the stock show should be good to carry, the rodeo not.

Those illegal 30.06 signs on the Will Rogers Complex are another matter entirely :mad5
-----------
“Sometimes there is no alternative to uncertainty except to await the arrival of more and better data.” C. Wunsch
User avatar
Keith B
Moderator
Posts: 18503
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: Driver (w/chl) in officer-involved wreck charged

Post by Keith B »

Rex B wrote:Those illegal 30.06 signs on the Will Rogers Complex are another matter entirely :mad5
30.06 signs on a government building aren't illegal, just unenforceable. They can post them all day long, they just are not valid to keep us out.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4
Rex B
Senior Member
Posts: 3616
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Driver (w/chl) in officer-involved wreck charged

Post by Rex B »

Keith, I understand all that. I think I know the CHL law as as well as most of us. But when I see an otherwise valid 30.06 sign on a public facility, I'm probably going to go back to the car and disarm, grumbling as I go.
It instills just enough doubt in my mind that I'd just as soon not risk my money or my liberty on that particular cause. If there happened to be a metal detector newly installed this year, I'm not sure I'd like to have that discussion.
-----------
“Sometimes there is no alternative to uncertainty except to await the arrival of more and better data.” C. Wunsch
pcgizzmo
Senior Member
Posts: 488
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 3:11 pm

Re: Driver (w/chl) in officer-involved wreck charged

Post by pcgizzmo »

This really sucks.. I hope the officer is OK.

Where are the good stories of CHL holder thwarts robbery attempt or saves officer in distress on highway. Yes, I know were not supposed to do that and not obligated but you would think the RARE circumstance would occur ever so often that a CHL holder is in the right place at the right time and can make a safely calculated move to save their life and also the lives of others. A few stories like that would go a long way I think.
User avatar
VoiceofReason
Banned
Posts: 1748
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: South Texas

Re: Driver (w/chl) in officer-involved wreck charged

Post by VoiceofReason »

Seems to me getting a conviction on “intoxicated assault on a peace officer” would require the state to prove she knew the difference between a State Troopers car and a telephone pole or any citizens car, and aimed at the State Troopers car.

Also did she know he was in it at the time?

Why did they not file DUI charges? :headscratch :headscratch
God Bless America, and please hurry.
When I was young I knew all the answers. When I got older I started to realize I just hadn’t quite understood the questions.-Me
srothstein
Senior Member
Posts: 5319
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: Driver (w/chl) in officer-involved wreck charged

Post by srothstein »

Nope, they don't need to prove she knew what she was doing. If the law required that, then her defense would be the intoxication and they could never get a conviction.

So, the law says the elements of the offense are:
1. intoxicated
2. operating a motor vehicle
3. involved in an accident
4. caused serious injury to another
5. for the upgrade on the penalty just that the other was a police officer, firefighter, or EMT.

And they don't file the DWI because it is what is called a lesser included offense to the intoxication assault. That means that the elements of the lower offense are all included in the elements of the higher one. And, just for technical accuracy and so everyone remembers, they did not file DUI because she was over 18. In Texas, we have a specific offense of DUI for minors with any detectable alcohol in their system. Anyone with enough alcohol to be intoxicated gets charged with DWI instead.
Steve Rothstein
TexasNurse2011
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:38 pm

Re: Driver (w/chl) in officer-involved wreck charged

Post by TexasNurse2011 »

Media keeps referring to her as a nurse. She's actually a P.A. (physicians assistant). She should clearly understand the effects of alcohol behind the wheel as well as risks of mixing firearms and alcohol. With the hand gun law, ignorance is no excuse because her husband is also a peace officer. It's very frustrating that she would even consider driving under the influence. The blessing (if there is one), is that the officer was back inside his car, other wise he very likely could have been killed. These types of actions are insulting to our professional community. Our calling is to save lives, not jeapordize them.
User avatar
Bashful
Member
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: Baytown

Re: Driver (w/chl) in officer-involved wreck charged

Post by Bashful »

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=8025630

Evidently, she worked a shift at HLSR in the Medical committee - had a few after shift drinks, and drove out 290 headed to Huntsville....
Springfield EMP Lightweight Champion
Glock(s)
NRA Life Member
TSRA Life Member
User avatar
VoiceofReason
Banned
Posts: 1748
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: South Texas

Re: Driver (w/chl) in officer-involved wreck charged

Post by VoiceofReason »

srothstein wrote:Nope, they don't need to prove she knew what she was doing. If the law required that, then her defense would be the intoxication and they could never get a conviction.

So, the law says the elements of the offense are:
1. intoxicated
2. operating a motor vehicle
3. involved in an accident
4. caused serious injury to another
5. for the upgrade on the penalty just that the other was a police officer, firefighter, or EMT.

And they don't file the DWI because it is what is called a lesser included offense to the intoxication assault. That means that the elements of the lower offense are all included in the elements of the higher one. And, just for technical accuracy and so everyone remembers, they did not file DUI because she was over 18. In Texas, we have a specific offense of DUI for minors with any detectable alcohol in their system. Anyone with enough alcohol to be intoxicated gets charged with DWI instead.
OK thanks for explaining that to me. I hope they nail the door shut on her.
God Bless America, and please hurry.
When I was young I knew all the answers. When I got older I started to realize I just hadn’t quite understood the questions.-Me
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”