TexasCHLforum.com

JP171 wrote:

C-dub wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

C-dub wrote:So, does this mean that the intoxication charge was also dropped? I didn't even see it mentioned. We knew the charge regarding carrying in the hospital was dropped.

I heard from mr glass tonight,

All charges dropped

That is excellent news. I hope his status in the Army is unaffected and he is returned to his former duties ASAP.

unfortunatly thats not gonna happen, he already has a counseling letter at the least in his 201 file and his CO has probably put notes in his restricted file that blew his career to bits

Umm, no,

1st, a DA4856 developmental counseling form is a local document only, and is destroyed upon transferring units.
2nd, there is no such thing as a 201 file any longer, personal records are digital and counseling forms have not been placed In a personal record for more then 30 years now.
3rd, this should effect him no more then a closed case with no conviction might effect a person applying for a chl.. You have to disclose it, on say a security clearance application, but not a big deal. No one else will ever know in a future unit unless he tells them.

The lasting effects of this event are personal (financial) in nature. Not professional.

C-dub wrote:So, does this mean that the intoxication charge was also dropped? I didn't even see it mentioned. We knew the charge regarding carrying in the hospital was dropped.

I heard from mr glass tonight,

All charges dropped

http://kdhnews.com/news/charges-dismiss ... l?mode=jqm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A Fort Hood soldier who was arrested and charged with a crime for bringing a concealed handgun into a local hospital had his charges dismissed.

Staff Sgt. Nathaniel Owen Sampson had a concealed handgun license when he brought his Springfield .45 into Metroplex Hospital’s emergency room March 30. State law prohibits concealed weapons from being brought to several places, such as convenience stores, bars and hospitals.

mikedude wrote:
This is pointless.

As I keep saying, somebody show some FACTS on this case.

Dozens, no hundreds of things are discussed here daily that have no "Facts" to support them.. Just observations, third party reports, media reports, rumor, .... If we are to limit discussion to only things that meet your personal bar for discussion...The "Fact" is there will be no discussion forum..here..

The FACT is, we are discussing an event based on the information available.

If you prefer to only discuss things that have Facts admissible in a court of law, as evidence in a criminal trial.. We no harm no foul, that's your choice Pass on commenting on this thread.. let those that DO want to discuss the event continue in a friendly manor.

I do concur, there is little more to discuss until some more info is available.... I doubt that info will be classified by some as "FACT" .. but new info it will be non the less.

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.

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...

mikedude wrote: The officer wasn't trolling, he was doing the investigation to a call he received,

The officer responded to a 911 call, placed by the accused.

mikedude wrote: and part of that would be to talk to the party involved.

Of course, contact was requested by the accused.

mikedude wrote:Charges get amended all the time by the DA's office. Charges get added, dropped, removed, ect.

The incorrect charge was dropped when and not until it was proven to the DA, there was no illegal act in bringing a legally carried concealed gun into the hospital, as the law required it to be posted and it was and still is not.
.. THEN and only THEN was the carrying while intoxicated charge added, and the other dropped.

mikedude wrote: Have you ever thought that perhaps the officer gave the guy a break by not adding the alcohol portion and the DA decided to add it?

Yes considered, researched, and NO that is not what happened from what info is available.

So let me paint the event as it is reported to have happened..

• Mr Sampson calls 911 for assistance, wife is having medication difficulties (it is not in dispute, Alcohol was consumed largely by the wife, leading to the medication issues, the man also states he had some wine over the curse of the night..)
  
  LEO/ EMS show up, man is asked for ID, shows DL/CHL....
  
  EMS states taking woman to Hosp. Mr Sampson says Im going, LEO tells him to leave his weapon at home as concealed hand guns even with CHL are not allowed in hospitals.
  
  Mr Sampson knows 2 things. .. 1: The hosp in question is not posted as of the last time he was there, 2: The officer is incorrect... as WE all know, HOSP are not off limits unless posted IAW 30.06
  
  Mr Sampson decides NOT to argue with LEO, knows the law, carry's anyway,, Tells EMS/LEO I will follow in my car...and does.
  
  Mr Sampson checks for 30.06 signage as he enters HOSP.. there is none, enters and attends to his wife.
  
  Mr Sampson is confronted by LEO if he is still carrying his concealed hand gun, Mr Sampson answers yes, and is charged with violation of 46.065 Carrying a concealed hand gun in a hospital... . Mr Sampson is arrested, jailed, forced to post bond.
  
  Mr Sampson and attorney meet with ADA, show that there was no violation of 46.065 Carrying a concealed hand gun in a hospital.. ADA disagrees and charge remains, meeting ends...
  
  Later ADA offers a reduced charge if Mr Sampson will plead guilty.. ... Mr Sampson refuses to plead it out.
  
  Attorney and Mr Sampson later notified 46.065 Carrying a concealed hand gun in a hospital has been dropped, and a new charge violation 46.065 Carrying a concealed hand gun while intoxicated has been added.

So lets recap.

-LEO states incorrectly that Mr Sampson can not carry in HOSP., Mr Sampson carry's anyway, knowing the law.
-LEO knows Mr Sampson is going to drive, then Mr Sampson does drive a vehicle to the HOSP.. No attempt to stop him from driving is made on scene, no contact or arrest is made at the HOSP for DUI.
-Mr Sampson is confirmed at HOSP to have a concealed hand gun, and arrested.
-Later offered lessor plea. Refused.
-The charge later amended to violation 46.065 Carrying a concealed hand gun while intoxicated.. a charge that would require the LEO observe and testify to Mr Sampson not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body

-No Field sobriety tests were done at either the scene or HOSP.
-No blood alcohol testing was done at the HOSP, or later at the jail.
-No charge of DUI was ever added...

The officer and ADA are stating Mr Sampson was so intoxicated he did not have normal use of mental or physical faculties...the charge is supported by only the officers observation. Yet, Mr Sampson was allowed to drive, and not charged with DUI...even though he was SO INTOXICATED HE DID NOT HAVE NORMAL USE OF MENTAL OR PHYSICAL FACULTIES......

That is all just third part reporting. From what has been written, and what I have been TOLD by the lawyer, Mr Glass. If I have misstated anything and you have a contrary bit of info ..please post up.. I may have missed something, please included a link to you cite for clarity.

In the coming days I'm supposed to be able to hear the 911 call.
Read the arrest initial report.
Read the charging documents.
And my hope is I can confirm for myself some of what I have been told.

Looks like a Jury will decide on the validity of the charge, as the ADA thus far is unwilling to.

The only part I am at odds with as far as the LEO is concerned,,,, is the initial charge. Perhaps an honest mistake, and he had the best intentions of trying to keep Mr Sampson out of trouble with his initial advice at the scene.. . the rest of this is by and through the ADA far as I can tell.

I do not claim to know what happened...Im just reading and making educated assumptions based on the info at hand. The Jury may see more, or differently and prove Mr Sampson was guilty as charged.

mikedude wrote:

harrycallahan wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

harrycallahan wrote:I have followed this just bit, reading here in the forum about this soldier. How was he charged in the first place under 30.06 if it is true that the hospital isn't posted? I can understand the intoxication charge added later, because that statute is both specific and purposely vague. There is much that is confusing and scary at the same time about this issue. Carry at a hospital is allowed, right? Unless posted? If this is indeed an issue of anti gun bias, I hope he prevails.

If you read though the whole thread,, you'll find that what appears to have happened is an unsupportable charge was originally made (ie violation of 30.06, as hospitals are no longer off limits unless posted, and this one was not posted) when that was pointed out to that ADA, that charge was dropped and amended to what he faces now.

The soldier was arrested and charged for an offense that did not exist at the time, and later the charge amended to reflect intoxication...thereby allowing this DA to continue harassing this man? Wow, this is very disturbing to me. I've seen posts that claim the charge is still UCW by a lic CHL, so I think there is still some misinformation out there. I can't speak for the first charge, but I can say this is why I'd never carry on the day that I drink. The police are not our friends and should not be treated as such. The officer was trolling for information and this poor guy gave it to him. I can remember a day when you could speak with a police officer, but that day has passed. Sad. I pray he is victorious.

I take offense to that. With the rational that "the police are not our friends and should be treated as such," then why all the comments throughout this forum and others about how the CHL got us off a ticket, ect? With that rational every CHL holder should get cited vs. getting a break. The officer wasn't trolling, he was doing the investigation to a call he received, and part of that would be to talk to the party involved. Charges get amended all the time by the DA's office. Charges get added, dropped, removed, ect. Have you ever thought that perhaps the officer gave the guy a break by not adding the alcohol portion and the DA decided to add it? No different then when an officer writes u a ticket for 70 in 55 vs the 88 you were actually doing. Happens all the time. They cut you some slack, you save a few bucks, and everybody leaves with good will thinking they were treated fair.

Please don't bother, it's drivel from one person and he was rebuked already by Chas.

Mr Glass called me yesterday..

As we surmised, the case was pushed to the right, past the 1st of the year.. Due to an overloaded court calendar.

Mr Glass continues to request I listen to the 911 tape, listen to the evidence that he can show me... and bring that back to whoever may be interested in reviewing it (though my observation,,, I can not have hard copys of any of it)... providing support if it meets a personal threshold for such.

If/ When this meeting takes place…. I’ll post up.


Erik

JKTex wrote:Hopefully that amended charge can't stand on it's own. If it can, he's toast as they don't need a test beyond the officers opinion that he had too much to drink to be carrying.

Unfortunately, it kind of smells like the Officer may have given him a break at the house, and that was his only freebee.

If that was the case ??

What of his not being charged for DUI? (he drove to the Hosp, this was seen and known by several officers)
If he was observed at the house as intoxicated, given a break...yet the officer allowed him to drive, then failed to charge him with DUI after he drove.. what of that?

Conversely..

If the officer did not feel he was impaired to drive, did not charge him with DUI for driving.. is that not in conflict with a later charge of Intoxication in regards to unlawful carry at the Hosp?

IANAL.. so it’s likely I do not understand all the twists and turns such a charge or lack thereof can have.. But I see anomalies in this case I cannot justify in my one mind.

Keith B wrote:

harrycallahan wrote: .....The police are not our friends and should not be treated as such. The officer was trolling for information and this poor guy gave it to him. I can remember a day when you could speak with a police officer, but that day has passed....

I beg to differ. While there are some officers that may not be friendly to a person carrying, not all are that way. There are plenty that are Pro-CHL. There is nothing wrong with being cautious and not even having one drink while carrying, that is bordering on being extra cautious, but believeing every police officer is out to get you is not accurate and on this forum borders on LEO bashing.

Borders?

Anyway..
No news is wierd news on this one..
I'll call Mr Glass in the morning ..... just because.

harrycallahan wrote: I've seen posts that claim the charge is still UCW by a lic CHL, so I think there is still some misinformation out there. .

What misinformation?
Unlawful Carrying of Handgun by License Holder (TPC 46.035) covers both a charges

TPC 43.065
in part

(b) (4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing home administration, as appropriate;

(6)(d) A license holder commits an offense if, while intoxicated, the license holder carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed.

Of course in this case (b)(4) does not apply as the hospital was not posted IAW TPC 30.06

But still the point is.. a charge of either violation of 46.035 (b)(4) or (6)(d) would still be listed as far as I have seen in researching dockets for several weeks now as Unlawful Carrying of Handgun by License Holder

harrycallahan wrote:I have followed this just bit, reading here in the forum about this soldier. How was he charged in the first place under 30.06 if it is true that the hospital isn't posted? I can understand the intoxication charge added later, because that statute is both specific and purposely vague. There is much that is confusing and scary at the same time about this issue. Carry at a hospital is allowed, right? Unless posted? If this is indeed an issue of anti gun bias, I hope he prevails.

If you read though the whole thread,, you'll find that what appears to have happened is an unsupportable charge was originally made (ie violation of 30.06, as hospitals are no longer off limits unless posted, and this one was not posted) when that was pointed out to that ADA, that charge was dropped and amended to what he faces now.

JALLEN wrote:The court clerk has public files and you can look at them, even buy copies of documents if you wish. I'm not sure a layman can adequately interpret what might be found, in terms of procedural steps, expectations about what is next, etc. It isn't "rocket surgery" but does take some getting used to.

I would call the court clerk to see what the hours are, in case they close over the lunch hour or something.

It would seem a written request must be submitted. And when I asked about "looking" I was told I could request copies and would have to pay $1.00 per page.

I’m interested enough to drive to Belton and even drop a few bucks to read though it.. But if the case file is more than 20 pages.... I’m not THAT interested

Luggo1 wrote:

Slipknot wrote:I wonder what happened at the hearing two weeks ago. I think I may have to wander up to the courthouse with a foia request.

At a minimum you can go to the Courthouse and just ask to see the Court file, it's public. There may not be much in it.

Really?

Might do that when I go to lunch then