TexasCHLforum.com

Heartland Patriot wrote:A bulge recognizable as a weapon...that certainly doesn't seem to meet the critera for someone to be arrested as explained by Mr. Cotton in another current post. Was the guy wearing spandex over it? I would be VERY surprised if they could actually tell it was a firearm vs their training giving them the idea that it was LIKELY a firearm. And the training of an LEO certainly goes outside the scope of detection as called out in the Penal code. There are just far too many things that ain't cool about this whole deal.

E.Marquez wrote:

jmra wrote:
The officer was already at the hospital. Given that the patient was stable I doubt they were breaking the sound barrier on their way to the hospital. Logical deduction is that since the officer was already in the hospital when the suspect arrived, the officer left the house before the suspect and also logical to deduce that the officer did not see him park since he was in the hospital (assuming of course that the suspect did in fact drive).

Oh, ok So you were not there? Got it thanks, for a minute it seemed like you were TELLING us what did happen, not just guessing based on a few lines of text from a media report. Thanks for clearing it up.

So reality is, your Guess is based on less info then my guess... but You insist we use your guess to guide the discussion.

Thanks,, PASS.
I choose to use ALL information available, not just what fits a personal opinion. With luck I'll get a first hand look at the officers arrest report, a listen to the 911 call (looking to "hear" evidence Mr Sampson is/ is not obviously intoxicated.. Speech, diction, logical thought process in the Q&A with 911 operator)
I'll happily add that here to what is part of the group discussion now.

jmra wrote: As far as what you have been told, forgive me if I take what the suspect or his lawyer says with a grain of salt.

Of course, and no one has suggested differently.
There are always at least three versions to every story.. In this case one will be the DA/ LEO's, another Mr Sampson's and his lawyer, and the third? Well that would be what really happened that day..something we will never know... as both sides are advisories in this case, and will spin/slant what they believe happened in the direction most likely to achieve the outcome they want. Convection or dismissal/acquittal.

I do agree with you,, The main point is... Charged with unlawful carrying,, to which there was no violation.. The rest is just a result of the initial charge and arrest.

E.Marquez wrote:

jmra wrote:Where does the driving come from?

Because he drove

jmra wrote: The officer left the guys house before he did and didn't see him again until he was in the hospital.

He did? were you the LEO that responded to the scene ?
Where you there?
Have you spoken to the Soldier or the lawyer? Responding officers? EMT's? The wife?

No? Ok then, perhaps YOU do not know all there is.
As I was not there either, all i have to go on is WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD .....AND what has been reported in the media. And in good faith that IS what we are discussing here.

jmra wrote: Lets deal with what we know!

We do not KNOW much other then he was arrested, charged, released on bond.. that is all we KNOW, we are discussing this based on reports from the media, and Mr Sampson's lawyer statements on behalf of his client...

We are using what we have been told or read to guide the discussion., Thanks...

bronco78 wrote:

jmra wrote:Hear anything new?

No Sir, not a word from the lawyer.

I think the effort and lead is on them.... so they have my contact number, email address, unit of assignment at Hood. We will see what happens.

bronco78 wrote:

jmra wrote:I wonder how different this picture will appear if/when we hear both sides of the story.
I will reserve judgement until I see the police report from the initial arrest and any testimony from witnesses the prosecution presents.

You likely will not make a judgment then till after this is settled.

If you were the one standing trial.. would you acquiesce to some random guy on the internet and post the entire case, or even components of the case on line for trial by internet forum member?

Would a Trial lawyer want the court of public internet forum opinion to taint his clients case before trial?

JP171 wrote: and the correct answer to that is noneya, fact of the matter is that an adverse reaction to medication does NOT warrent any questions about fire arms, movies, or anything else except what meds and how much of what alcohol period. anyone that excuses the officer and his attemp to control anyone is well..... you know. This with the available information is nothing more than a witch hunt, gotta make sure the cop is right and the DA seems to grasping at anything that will help keep the cop from looking foolish and embarressing the DA and City leadership.

C-dub wrote:

jmra wrote:

WildBill wrote:

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?

You may be right. I don't even remember how the LEO knew about the gun at the house.

my guess would be the officer asked for ID and was given dl and chl.

Ooh, interesting side question. The soldier would have been at home when the officer responded to the original call and that's where he would have been asked for ID. So, am I required by law when asked for ID inside my home or on my property to inform or provide my CHL to the officer? I don't think I am, but it might be foolish not to.

C-dub wrote:

2firfun50 wrote: OK Guys, if he was impaired, how did he get to the hospital?
Did Wyatt Earp allow him to drive? If so thats VERY bad!

I like the way you think.

WildBill wrote:

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?

You may be right. I don't even remember how the LEO knew about the gun at the house.

mlawler wrote:Why am I the only one to point out:...