TexasCHLforum.com

Slipknot wrote:Good news indeed. I do wonder how the charges were removed. Did the DA drop the charges or were they dismissed by the judge?

Dragonfighter wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:Not gonna go to the trouble of looking it up but I think no alcohol testing is required to convict for public intoxication. The LEO's opinion is enough and if the security guy's testimony concurs this may create bigger problems for the CHL. Hoping that justice wins. (did I read one gal drank almost 4 bottles of wine by herself?)

Why would no sort of proof be required to prove PI? Once again, nothing against law enforcement in the least, but what if the officer involved just doesn't like alcohol, or is ticked off about working a shift that he was supposed to be off or a thousand other things, and decides to take it out on the NEXT PERSON he gets called out because of? <SNIP> Not saying that LEOs shouldn't be able to ARREST someone they think might be a hazard...I'm talking about CONVICTING someone. I hope that you guys and gals can see the difference in what I am saying.

Then there is DKA (Diabetic Keto-acidosis) where the body starts breathing off ketones from uncontrolled blood glucose levels. The symptoms are very much like intoxication and the "acetone" breath very much like alcohol. It took a dead diabetic at Lew Sterrett to do so, but in Dallas paramedics are called to DWI stops all the time to verify sugar levels (D-Stick).

JALLEN wrote:

WildBill wrote:

JALLEN wrote:
Many of us remember the OJ trial....

I was going to bring this up, but decided not to. Since you opened the door, Fuhrman stated in his book that his initial report from the crime scene and OJ's house was given to Marcia Clark, but was not given to the detective who took over so it was not presented at the trial.

So what?

JALLEN wrote:

RottenApple wrote:
In your experience (and I know you said you aren't a criminal defense attorney), would the mere absence of corroborating evidence (nothing in the police report, no breathalyzer test, no blood test, no FST) be enough to create reasonable doubt? I can tell you that if I sat on a jury overseeing such a case, I would be very, very skeptical of the prosecution.

Reasonable doubt is not a fixed, measurable concept, but whatever the trier of fact says it is. The appeals process can say there was enough evidence, if believed by the jury, to justify the verdict, for example, but they can't say that the jury should have believed it.

Many of us remember the OJ trial....

Dave2 wrote:

JALLEN wrote:As a lawyer, though, I would not allow any lawyer to remain on the jury if I could help it. The risk is too great that once the jury room door closes, the rest of the jurors would look down at the one lawyer and say, "What the hey was that all about?" IOW, the lawyer might have more influence on the other jurors than otherwise.

What if all the jurors were lawyers?

I bet deliberations would take a while.

RottenApple wrote:

JALLEN wrote:It is true that the report need not contain a verbatim reference to everything the reporting officer saw or heard dealing with the event covered by the report, but it is suspicious if no reference is made to certain key circumstances, but those are later made the subject of a charge not part of the original charge(s).

In your experience (and I know you said you aren't a criminal defense attorney), would the mere absence of corroborating evidence (nothing in the police report, no breathalyzer test, no blood test, no FST) be enough to create reasonable doubt? I can tell you that if I sat on a jury overseeing such a case, I would be very, very skeptical of the prosecution.

cbunt1 wrote:And the last couple of posts speak to exactly why this case is so incredibly important to all of us as a matter of case law.

Keith B wrote:

SewTexas wrote:soooooo, the cop or "someone" is saying that the CHL holder has "allegedly" (always have hated that word, but I suppose it's correct to use here) carried their weapon into a 30.06 posted establishment? or somewhere else it's illegal to carry?

Not nessecarily. They may have intentionally not concealed the gun for some reason or may have been inviolved in a crime (deadly conduct) and used displayed the weapon (road rage for instance)

SewTexas wrote:so what does "UNL CARRY HANDGUN LIC HOLDER " mean?

sorta feel like heading up to Bell county and walking around but then again I don't really have time in my life to be arrested

Jaguar wrote:I am tempted to take a few days of vacation and drive down to Killeen and watch the trial. I am sure they will all but disregard the "illegal carry in a hospital" charge since it isn't illegal, and focus on the "smell of alcohol" and "contempt of cop" charges since those are vague and easily overstated for a jury.

Does anyone know what court he will be tried in, if it gets that far?

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?

tazz0018 wrote:This soldier went to war for us three times and now has to deal with this over a simple exposed GUN at a hospital with no 30.06 sign and (may) have been drinking a little and did no harm to no one. And yes they haul him to jail, but after checking his service to this county to protect the ones that's going to ruining his life from this time forward. Something just wrong with this. But if there is more to this story, I might just my change my opinion.

C-dub wrote:On my way to school back in '99 I was speeding and got caught. The officer wrote the wrong date on the citation and I pointed that out to the judge and he said, so what.

... on or about prep. a phrase referring to a date or place used in a complaint in a lawsuit or criminal charge if there is any uncertainty at all, in order to protect the person making the allegations of fact from being challenged as being inaccurate. Thus, a complaint will read "On or about July 11, 1994, Defendant drove his vehicle negligently and without due care on or about the corner of Sunset and Vine Streets...