TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:My question wasn't about whether he was right or wrong since it is clear that he was wrong. I'm curious about his method of disarmament. Were he not a LEO what he did would clearly be an assault. It would be if someone attempted to disarm a LEO like that and likely result in their death. My question is, due to his ignorance, is he given a free pass on the "assault" because of being a LEO? And at what point does that free pass no longer apply?

srothstein wrote:No, C-dub, it became more of an issue when the legislature added section 14.03(g) to the Code of Criminal Procedure. This limited the authority of officers outside their jurisdiction to stop them from writing tickets. It went all the way to the Court of Criminal Appeals because a officer in the Plano/Richardson area arrested a DWI on the wrong side of the street for his city. For a while, city officers were strictly limited to just their city. Now they can do anything in the county their city is in.

I am fairly confident that most cities would fight trying to pay a workman's comp claim from an off duty job in a different city, based ont eh way the laws are worded still.

srothstein wrote:

WTR wrote:Lets ask an active or retired LEO their opinion as to how it works.

There are some fairly old court cases that tell us exactly how it works. Believe it or not, the officer is off duty working security for the person paying him until he has to take action to stop or handle a crime. The second he does that he is on duty until the duty is fulfilled, then he is off duty again.

This was based on some case where officers got hurt while handling crimes (some of them serious crimes) and the city tried to claim that they did not need to pay the workman's comp claims, the person paying them did. Part of the court's logic was that there was a law requiring the officer to respond to crimes in his jurisdiction, so the law said they were on duty.

Given that logic, I am not sure how it will hold up in court if the officer is working outside his jurisdiction. SAPD used to not allow that (based on these court cases). But if, for example, a Luling PD officer was working security at a store in San Marcos (different city and county), I do not know that the courts would hold the same. The law clearly only requires him to take action in his jurisdiction. BTW, this is why the experienced SAPD officers used to like to take their dinner breaks in one of the restaurants just across the line into one of the suburb cities. You could handle a disturbance without having to arrest and interrupt the meal that long.

WildBill wrote:I think the sheriff's response was all that could be expected from him.
He acknowledged that the deputy needed training and would get it.
It would not be proper to admit any wrongdoing or to discuss personnel or disciplinary matters in an email to someone outside the department.
My view is that the bigger mistake is the method that the deputy used to disarm the OP.

puma guy wrote: Yes. I read your entire post. I only responded to your statement pertaining to carrying in a liquor store and the 51% rule which is misleading. Someone may read your post and think they aren't legally allowed to do that if they are licensed which is not true. 51% signs have nothing to do with liquor stores. Adding the information from TABC website explains that a 51% sign has nothing to do with a liquor store and only applies to on premises consumption establishments hopefully may educate someone about when and where they are allowed to carry in establishments that sell and/or serve alcohol. Someone who may read your statement and think they can't carry into a liquor store with an LTC. When you or any one states

it is illegal to bring a firearm into a liquor store under the 51%provision

I will point out that it's incorrect, nothing personal. I wish you all the best

JP171 wrote:as the officer understood the law(no matter how wrong) it is illegal to bring a firearm into a liquor store under the 51% provision