TexasCHLforum.com

Maybe they were rooting for the fireman.

Ultra_Solo_Sig_0904 wrote:the people videotaping seemed to think that the police officer did start the fight.... but yeah the guy was an idiot for keeping it going....

Many times the LEO is the one going hands on to effect an arrest. People are required to not resist arrest and clearly this drunk became combative to the point of being shot. Had one of those nimwits helped out vs talking smack this could have been avoided, but talk is easy and they obviously couldn't step up to the plate

talltex wrote:

Keith B wrote:It's a little different when you have a uniformed officer. Either way, he had the right to shoot the guy, as would a CHL IF the CHL had not been the one to start the fight.

That's true, and I think anyone would agree that getting your head pounded on concrete could put anyone in reasonable fear of their life, however there's a big difference with him being a uniformed officer vs. a citizen. The officer will go home that night, probably wind up on desk duty or administrative leave until the investigation is concluded, without any charges ever being filed...a CHL holder in the same circumstance is probably going to be arrested, taken to jail, have to retain legal counsel at considerable expense, go through a bail hearing, and hopefully be released on his own recognizance, but more likely after posting bail, while awaiting the outcome of the investigation, and even if charges are dropped, likely face a costly civil suit. LEO's are somewhat of a protected class in that regard.

It isn't a freebie when a LEO shoots somebody. A leo is also going to be detained, have their gun taken away at some point, not allowed to talk to anybody, taken to the station, have to retain legal council, be sued, ect. I can say it is NOT a pleasant experience.

texanjoker wrote:

talltex wrote:

Keith B wrote:It's a little different when you have a uniformed officer. Either way, he had the right to shoot the guy, as would a CHL IF the CHL had not been the one to start the fight.

That's true, and I think anyone would agree that getting your head pounded on concrete could put anyone in reasonable fear of their life, however there's a big difference with him being a uniformed officer vs. a citizen. The officer will go home that night, probably wind up on desk duty or administrative leave until the investigation is concluded, without any charges ever being filed...a CHL holder in the same circumstance is probably going to be arrested, taken to jail, have to retain legal counsel at considerable expense, go through a bail hearing, and hopefully be released on his own recognizance, but more likely after posting bail, while awaiting the outcome of the investigation, and even if charges are dropped, likely face a costly civil suit. LEO's are somewhat of a protected class in that regard.

It isn't a freebie when a LEO shoots somebody. A leo is also going to be detained, have their gun taken away at some point, not allowed to talk to anybody, taken to the station, have to retain legal council, be sued, ect. I can say it is NOT a pleasant experience.

I certainly didn't intend to suggest it was no big deal for the LEO, and in this case I don't think there's any question of justification...but there IS a big difference: 1. the LEO may be detained, but he's not going to be cuffed, put in the backseat and taken to jail and locked in a cell. 2. he may have his gun taken away "at some point"...but the citizen better not even be within reach of his when officers arrive on the scene or risk being shot. 3. the LEO won't be allowed to talk to anyone ?? As I recall, when the FWPD officer shot Mr. Waller in his own garage last year, an attorney to represent him was immediately summoned by the department and was at the scene within minutes. He didn't have to wait to be taken to the station before his legal counsel was already in place and advising him at the scene. I don't think a citizen in that situation would have had that privilege.

mojo84 wrote:rbwhatever1,
Sad state of affairs isn't it? It's amazing to me how many would do the same.

Sad state of affairs for America indeed. Most American men, if one can call them men at all, have been indoctrinated well into their roles as dependents of the State. We have become a Nation of Cowards looking towards the State for Protection, Security and whatever else we selfishly need in our daily interactions with society. Indoctrinated at a very young age to be good "citizen victims" who cannot act and have no desire to do what's right. We may not even know what "right" is. A bully punched you in the nose? Don't fight back (self-defense) you will be kicked out of school. Run away citizens! Run Away! And when you're safe call 911 so the State can swoop in like the Lone Ranger and fix all your problems. Or at least zip up the body bag.

We American men used to help each other. We used to run toward gunfire, never backed down from a fight and never ran away from danger. Their are still good men (and women) out there who will always do the right thing but today it's the exception rather than the rule.

I agree. I also believe the selfish "me, myself and mine only" attitude has become more pervasive. That used to be what little children thought. Now grown adults hold to this selfish attitude.

talltex wrote: I certainly didn't intend to suggest it was no big deal for the LEO, and in this case I don't think there's any question of justification...but there IS a big difference: 1. the LEO may be detained, but he's not going to be cuffed, put in the backseat and taken to jail and locked in a cell. 2. he may have his gun taken away "at some point"...but the citizen better not even be within reach of his when officers arrive on the scene or risk being shot. 3. the LEO won't be allowed to talk to anyone ?? As I recall, when the FWPD officer shot Mr. Waller in his own garage last year, an attorney to represent him was immediately summoned by the department and was at the scene within minutes. He didn't have to wait to be taken to the station before his legal counsel was already in place and advising him at the scene. I don't think a citizen in that situation would have had that privilege.

This is still kind of apples and oranges. My responses to your numbers above:
1. Depending on what the situation was he may well be cuffed, put in the car and taken to jail. A CHL may not have that happen either. A LEO known by the responding officers, DA, etc, may have be less chance of it happening, but the same could go for a small town where the LEO's, DA, etc know the CHL holder.
2. LEO's routinely go on paid leave with their department issued gun taken away from them after a shooting. A CHL holder may have his gun taken away for evidence, but this is why you should have another one as a back-up.
3. The LEO that shot Mr. Waller was on duty working and the department has the city lawyers on hand for any type of incident like this. If I had an incident at my work requiring a lawyer immediately one of our company legal counsels would be at my disposal. That is also why I have prepaid legal services that I can contact for any type of issue I may personally encounter.

So, bottom line, yes, a uniformed LEO is going to potentially have a different set of circumstances after a shooting, but so will a different CHL holders in different situations. Nothing is cut an dried after a shooting.

In the two shootings I was involved in while in uniform (I was not the shooter, just another responding officer), the officer that shot the person was placed on administrative leave for a short period of time. The internal investigations were very quick on the incident as they were pretty cut and dried (one armed robbery suspect with a record a mile long, and the other was hooting at us and had murdered hi Mom and Dad), so the officers were back on duty within a few days after the shootings.

Keith B wrote:

talltex wrote: I certainly didn't intend to suggest it was no big deal for the LEO, and in this case I don't think there's any question of justification...but there IS a big difference: 1. the LEO may be detained, but he's not going to be cuffed, put in the backseat and taken to jail and locked in a cell. 2. he may have his gun taken away "at some point"...but the citizen better not even be within reach of his when officers arrive on the scene or risk being shot. 3. the LEO won't be allowed to talk to anyone ?? As I recall, when the FWPD officer shot Mr. Waller in his own garage last year, an attorney to represent him was immediately summoned by the department and was at the scene within minutes. He didn't have to wait to be taken to the station before his legal counsel was already in place and advising him at the scene. I don't think a citizen in that situation would have had that privilege.

This is still kind of apples and oranges. My responses to your numbers above:
1. Depending on what the situation was he may well be cuffed, put in the car and taken to jail. A CHL may not have that happen either. A LEO known by the responding officers, DA, etc, may have be less chance of it happening, but the same could go for a small town where the LEO's, DA, etc know the CHL holder.
2. LEO's routinely go on paid leave with their department issued gun taken away from them after a shooting. A CHL holder may have his gun taken away for evidence, but this is why you should have another one as a back-up.
3. The LEO that shot Mr. Waller was on duty working and the department has the city lawyers on hand for any type of incident like this. If I had an incident at my work requiring a lawyer immediately one of our company legal counsels would be at my disposal. That is also why I have prepaid legal services that I can contact for any type of issue I may personally encounter.

So, bottom line, yes, a uniformed LEO is going to potentially have a different set of circumstances after a shooting, but so will a different CHL holders in different situations. Nothing is cut an dried after a shooting.

In the two shootings I was involved in while in uniform (I was not the shooter, just another responding officer), the officer that shot the person was placed on administrative leave for a short period of time. The internal investigations were very quick on the incident as they were pretty cut and dried (one armed robbery suspect with a record a mile long, and the other was hooting at us and had murdered hi Mom and Dad), so the officers were back on duty within a few days after the shootings.

It may be apples and oranges, but in this case one fruit might be easier to swallow.
Doesn't the LEO have free legal representation from the union? IMO, that makes a lot of difference.
Also being put on paid leave versus a CHL holder having to take off work to go to court can cost additional cash and stress.

WildBill wrote:It may be apples and oranges, but in this case one fruit might be easier to swallow.
Doesn't the LEO have free legal representation from the union? IMO, that makes a lot of difference.
Also being put on paid leave versus a CHL holder having to take off work to go to court can cost additional cash and stress.

I don't disagree. And I wouldn't call it 'free' legal representation. The LEO works for the city/county/state and the 'company' will provide him legal representation as far as the job goes. If the LEO is sued later for a civil suit the agency may or may not provide legal representation at no cost to him/her. Same with me if I have an issue at work and the company is sued.

I know of one instance where one of our company employees was involved in an accident. Not his fault, but the other party tried to sue both the company and the employee. In this case the company chose to represent him in both cases. Another incident occurred where the company chose to only represent the employee and company in one case and the employee had to get their own lawyer for the civil suit. In that case the employee was responsible and liable for the damage he caused.

In our case, since we choose to carry on our own nickel, then we also must choose whether or not we will have some sort of legal representation on standby or not and it will be at our expense.

jmra wrote:Seems pretty simple to me - beat on a cop, get shot. Does anyone actually expect some other outcome?

Nope...

Blindref757 wrote:He had a .21 BAC.

Source?

Jumping Frog wrote:

Blindref757 wrote:He had a .21 BAC.

Source?

Probably a liquor store or bar.

Jumping Frog wrote:

Blindref757 wrote:He had a .21 BAC.

Source?

Hubbard suffered significant injuries including broken facial bones. Bruno was shot twice in the chest. Bruno's blood-alcohol content was .21, according to his autopsy. You are considered legally intoxicated at .08. Video taken at Anthony's restaurant where the Brunos and friends went after their hotel wedding reception showed Bruno having trouble standing up and stumbling about 1:45 a.m., according to the case file.

http://www.kctv5.com/story/24820327/vid ... ce-officer

WildBill wrote:

Keith B wrote:

talltex wrote: I certainly didn't intend to suggest it was no big deal for the LEO, and in this case I don't think there's any question of justification...but there IS a big difference: 1. the LEO may be detained, but he's not going to be cuffed, put in the backseat and taken to jail and locked in a cell. 2. he may have his gun taken away "at some point"...but the citizen better not even be within reach of his when officers arrive on the scene or risk being shot. 3. the LEO won't be allowed to talk to anyone ?? As I recall, when the FWPD officer shot Mr. Waller in his own garage last year, an attorney to represent him was immediately summoned by the department and was at the scene within minutes. He didn't have to wait to be taken to the station before his legal counsel was already in place and advising him at the scene. I don't think a citizen in that situation would have had that privilege.

This is still kind of apples and oranges. My responses to your numbers above:
1. Depending on what the situation was he may well be cuffed, put in the car and taken to jail. A CHL may not have that happen either. A LEO known by the responding officers, DA, etc, may have be less chance of it happening, but the same could go for a small town where the LEO's, DA, etc know the CHL holder.
2. LEO's routinely go on paid leave with their department issued gun taken away from them after a shooting. A CHL holder may have his gun taken away for evidence, but this is why you should have another one as a back-up.
3. The LEO that shot Mr. Waller was on duty working and the department has the city lawyers on hand for any type of incident like this. If I had an incident at my work requiring a lawyer immediately one of our company legal counsels would be at my disposal. That is also why I have prepaid legal services that I can contact for any type of issue I may personally encounter.

So, bottom line, yes, a uniformed LEO is going to potentially have a different set of circumstances after a shooting, but so will a different CHL holders in different situations. Nothing is cut an dried after a shooting.

In the two shootings I was involved in while in uniform (I was not the shooter, just another responding officer), the officer that shot the person was placed on administrative leave for a short period of time. The internal investigations were very quick on the incident as they were pretty cut and dried (one armed robbery suspect with a record a mile long, and the other was hooting at us and had murdered hi Mom and Dad), so the officers were back on duty within a few days after the shootings.

It may be apples and oranges, but in this case one fruit might be easier to swallow.
Doesn't the LEO have free legal representation from the union? IMO, that makes a lot of difference.
Also being put on paid leave versus a CHL holder having to take off work to go to court can cost additional cash and stress.

LEOS pay for legal defense fees in advance via the association. I pay monthly via the association to ensure I have council should I need it, so the attorney is not free. Anybody that carries a gun needs to have a plan as to what they will do for legal coverage should they be forced to use their weapon. When civilly sued the dept provides the attorney, but not during the shooting investigation. You either pay upfront, have a membership in an association that has legal defense or don't have one. Some guys don't want to pay the association fees gambling that the actual chance of being in a OIS are very slim, which is true. However if they are in a shooting they are not covered.

texanjoker wrote:LEOS pay for legal defense fees in advance via the association. I pay monthly via the association to ensure I have council should I need it, so the attorney is not free. Anybody that carries a gun needs to have a plan as to what they will do for legal coverage should they be forced to use their weapon. When civilly sued the dept provides the attorney, but not during the shooting investigation. You either pay upfront, have a membership in an association that has legal defense or don't have one. Some guys don't want to pay the association fees gambling that the actual chance of being in a OIS are very slim, which is true. However if they are in a shooting they are not covered.

Thanks for the explanation.

I really didn't mean "free" as I know that there are association fees.