TexasCHLforum.com

This isn't an LEO bash, just a question that was asked of me today that I couldn't answer so I thought I would ask it here. So here goes.

A friend of mine as due in court on a case as the plaintiff against a dog owner whose dogs attacked and injured her daughter. The family who owned the dogs claimed to have no liability insurance and that the dog belonged to their son (who at the time was in college).

Anyway they didn't reach a settle ment at the disposition hearing (they wanted to settle for $1200) and so it went to court.

The case was this Tuesday and Wednesday in Houston. While the jury was being selected the son turned up. Sat back in his chair and a gun was seen in an ankle holder. Only after people started to stare and mention the gun did he tell the baliff that he was an off duty HPD policeman and he had a backup weapon.

Now I have no problem with him having an off duty weapon, but shouldn't it have been (and stayed) concealed?

How come a defendant (regradless of him being a policeman) can carry a weapon anyway?

Shouldn't he have declared the weapon before he intimidated the 14 year old girl and her parents?

This just seems wrong to me.

Any thoughts?

The law on unlawfully carrying makes no mention of openly carrying or concealed. The law exempting police officers from unlawfully carrying makes no mention of on or off duty status. Thus, there is no legal reason he could not have walked in with the gun on his hip if he wanted to. This also means that his status as a defendant has no legal bearing on his carrying the pistol.

But then you ask a second question about it being right or wrong. This is not necessarily related to the law at all. If he was exposing the gun to deliberately intimidate the plaintiffs, the judge should have taken immediate action. This could be interpreted as a felony (retaliation). It certainly tends to corrupt the justice system further than it is already. Even if the judge did not notice it, the people involved should be filing a complaint with the Houston Police Department over the intimidation. I am sure they have some rules about things of that nature, and may even have rules about concealing off duty weapons.

But, and this is very important, there is also the possibility that the gun was not deliberately exposed. It is hard to break some habits, and we normally do not think of them at all. Crossing you legs is one of those habits. And, if an officer crosses his legs without thinking, it is certainly possible for the pants leg to ride up and expose the pistol without his meaning to or even knowing about it. And some people are intimidated by the mere sight of a pistol, even when the owner does not know it is showing or mean to intimidate anyone. Given the circumstances of a court case, I think it is just as likely that the plaintiffs were intimidated without the officer's knowledge as it is that he meant to intimidate them.

Only the officer and the people in the room at the time will know exactly what went down and how. Only the officer will know his actual intent. Let your friend know that it is possible to file the complaint with HPD and see it investigated. That is about all I can see as a reasonable way to handle it without having been there at the time.

Thank you. That was pretty much what I told the friend too. Having had to go through the courts once, I doubt they want to get further involved in the HPD for a very long time again.

Sometimes it seems like police officers live totally outside of the law they are supposed to uphold.

Kevinf2349 wrote:Sometimes it seems like police officers live totally outside of the law they are supposed to uphold.

Only a few do this. Most of us try to obey the law and be fair about things. I used to like it that a lot of Texas laws were written expecting the cop to use common sense when enforcing them. I have come to really regret it as so many cops take advantage of it. I know it is a minority and the good cops are just not newsworthy (until they get shot), but it irritates me that even a few cops are like that.

IMHO, anyone that is not directly serving in the capacity as a bailiff for that court should be required to disarm before entering the building - even (and especially) LEOs. This includes ANY weapon, lethal or less-than-lethal (mace, pepper spray, batons, etc). Cops are just as likely to lose control as anyone else involved in a trial. Even bailiffs should only be carrying less-than-lethal gear to avoid giving the bad guys the opportunity to somehow end up with a gun and start shooting the place up.

srothstein wrote:But then you ask a second question about it being right or wrong. This is not necessarily related to the law at all. If he was exposing the gun to deliberately intimidate the plaintiffs, the judge should have taken immediate action. This could be interpreted as a felony (retaliation). It certainly tends to corrupt the justice system further than it is already. Even if the judge did not notice it, the people involved should be filing a complaint with the Houston Police Department over the intimidation. I am sure they have some rules about things of that nature, and may even have rules about concealing off duty weapons.

IMO, this should have been reported to the judge. The judge could have ordered him to disarm and have him ejected from the courtroom. The son's LEO status is not relavent in this lawsuit. Announcing his status after exposing a handgun could prejudice the jury. I would think that if this happened after the jury was selected the judge could/should have declared a mistrial. IANAL, but this isn't a courtroom.

I think the bigger issue here isn't the son's gun. If the law allows him the right to carry concealed into a courtroom, that's just what it says, and I don't care if he does or doesn't. The bigger issue here that he is A) a cop, and supposed to uphold the law and live an exemplary life (as we all are supposed to do); and B) that he won't take responsibility for his dogs attacking and injuring someone's daughter. That makes him a big jerk, and possibly even someone who ought not to be trusted with enforcing all the laws — since he so obviously doesn't believe they apply to him.

Kevinf2349 wrote:This isn't an LEO bash

Kevinf2349 wrote:Sometimes it seems like police officers live totally outside of the law they are supposed to uphold.

What does it matter if he had his gun on his ankle? I've seen plain clothes officers carry on their hip in court. Were you there or is this third party information?

The Annoyed Man wrote:I think the bigger issue here isn't the son's gun. If the law allows him the right to carry concealed into a courtroom, that's just what it says, and I don't care if he does or doesn't. The bigger issue here that he is A) a cop, and supposed to uphold the law and live an exemplary life (as we all are supposed to do); and B) that he won't take responsibility for his dogs attacking and injuring someone's daughter. That makes him a big jerk, and possibly even someone who ought not to be trusted with enforcing all the laws — since he so obviously doesn't believe they apply to him.

+1!!!!!!!

trdvet wrote:

Kevinf2349 wrote:This isn't an LEO bash

Kevinf2349 wrote:Sometimes it seems like police officers live totally outside of the law they are supposed to uphold.

What does it matter if he had his gun on his ankle? I've seen plain clothes officers carry on their hip in court. Were you there or is this third party information?

As I said in my original thread it was a friend of mine, I wasn't there but I have no reason to doubt their observations. They are not taking anything any further they were just wanting to know if what they experienced as permissable.

Also the two quotes are not even in the same post and you have taken them entirely out of context.

I have not 'bashed' any individual officer just made a general observation.

What difference does it make what you have seen? You aren't a 14 year old girl who was already frightened of even have to be on court are you?

Wait didn't the homeowner say the dog belonged to the son who was away in college, not a police officer?

suthdj wrote:Wait didn't the homeowner say the dog belonged to the son who was away in college, not a police officer?

Correct, that is because at the time of the attack (about two years ago) he was in college. Now he is in the HPD.

Kevinf2349 wrote:

suthdj wrote:Wait didn't the homeowner say the dog belonged to the son who was away in college, not a police officer?

Correct, that is because at the time of the attack (about two years ago) he was in college. Now he is in the HPD.

Oh ok, I guess that is the speedy trial thing.

It's sort of an unwritten rule that we always asked the judge's permission to have our off duty weapon on us. Usually the baliff will relay the request. Most judges will ask that you do carry it. Plus, this was just a civil suit.
I have had over 60 felony arrests and court trials and never had a court tell me not to carry my weapon.

Sarge1208 wrote:It's sort of an unwritten rule that we always asked the judge's permission to have our off duty weapon on us. Usually the baliff will relay the request. Most judges will ask that you do carry it. Plus, this was just a civil suit.
I have had over 60 felony arrests and court trials and never had a court tell me not to carry my weapon.

That's why I said that the son carrying a weapon in the courtroom isn't the real issue here, since he is a LEO. The real issue is that he sounds like a jerk who doesn't take responsibility for what his dog does; and if that is the case, then he likely makes a poor LEO, since LEOs are supposed to uphold the law, including in their own behavior, not flaunt it.