TexasCHLforum.com

The problem is that by circumventing the normal investigatory process, we'll never know if he has alcohol on board.

The Annoyed Man wrote:The problem is that by circumventing the normal investigatory process, we'll never know if he has alcohol on board.

I think that's the point. It's a calculated action, like sacrificing a pawn in chess.

gringo pistolero wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:The problem is that by circumventing the normal investigatory process, we'll never know if he has alcohol on board.

I think that's the point. It's a calculated action, like sacrificing a pawn in chess.

And assuming it's not a calculated action to avoid a more serious charge.. His actions now leave him open to those assumptions and accusations.

E.Marquez wrote:

gringo pistolero wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:The problem is that by circumventing the normal investigatory process, we'll never know if he has alcohol on board.

I think that's the point. It's a calculated action, like sacrificing a pawn in chess.

And assuming it's not a calculated action to avoid a more serious charge.. His actions now leave him open to those assumptions and accusations.

There is still going to be an investigation his statement doesn't effect that it just states that he is going to penalize himself more that the standard for the incident. Lets face it, it's just an accident and you don't get dinged very hard for something like that so the PR issue is worse than any discipline you would ever get. While he bumps up the Discipline maybe he mitigates some of the PR damage.

One day without pay?

No ticket for whatever caused it, running a light, illegal left turn, following too close, speeding, etc.

Do you get points here for traffic violations towards suspension?

Of course, the city will pay for the victim's injuries.

E.Marquez wrote:

gringo pistolero wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:The problem is that by circumventing the normal investigatory process, we'll never know if he has alcohol on board.

I think that's the point. It's a calculated action, like sacrificing a pawn in chess.

And assuming it's not a calculated action to avoid a more serious charge.. His actions now leave him open to those assumptions and accusations.

Wow - looking at this thread. How is he circumventing the normal investigatory process? This is a simple traffic accident during the daylight while off duty. It was clearly investigated because the article said it will go on his driving record. He shouldn't be receiving any discipline for this but it said he wanted it to make a point whatever that is.

The only violation was probably failure to yield right of way to a pedestrian. Both the pedestrian and the Chief were going in the same direction when the Chief made a left and hit the pedestrian. That makes it highly likely that they both had the green light and the left was probably legal (one way street to one way street from the video).

I can't jump either way the alcohol involvement, but there were enough witnesses who jumped to help the victim in the video that I would guess that it will come out if it was involved.

My complaint is the amount of discipline. He says an officer who is off duty would normally get a reprimand not a suspension, but most officers would not be driving a city vehicle when off duty. If the discipline really is too light, we will hear it soon fromt he police union unless he is a really good, well-liked Chief.

texanjoker wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

gringo pistolero wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:The problem is that by circumventing the normal investigatory process, we'll never know if he has alcohol on board.

I think that's the point. It's a calculated action, like sacrificing a pawn in chess.

And assuming it's not a calculated action to avoid a more serious charge.. His actions now leave him open to those assumptions and accusations.

Wow - looking at this thread. How is he circumventing the normal investigatory process? This is a simple traffic accident during the daylight while off duty. It was clearly investigated because the article said it will go on his driving record. He shouldn't be receiving any discipline for this but it said he wanted it to make a point whatever that is.

There is NO mention of any on scene investigation,, common yes? when a driver runs down a pedestrian ?

My only point is, we don't know... and not having what DID happen publicly known , leads some to assume it did not happen.
Im not assuming I know anything.. except, it would have been better (and this may or may not have happened) if the Chief had insisted his best officer had done exactly what is established and common had I or any other citizen ran someone down,, THEN ensured that was well publicized.

I guess at this point Im only poking at his PR execution, not any wrong doing criminally.

JALLEN wrote: Do you get points here for traffic violations towards suspension?

Yes.

You can read about it here. Driver Responsibility Program

I wasn't there, so i don't know what actually happened. As this is going on his driving record, then a traffic violation obviously occurred while he was off duty. Did he get a citation and pay a fine in addition to his self imposed suspension? Or, does the unpaid suspension count as the fine for LEOs off duty?

tomtexan wrote:

JALLEN wrote: Do you get points here for traffic violations towards suspension?

Yes.

You can read about it here. Driver Responsibility Program

Ewwww! That's wicked. CA has a point system but if you accumulate enough points your license is suspended. Here, it looks like they just raid your bank account.

Better than a state income tax, I guess.

JALLEN wrote:One day without pay?

No ticket for whatever caused it, running a light, illegal left turn, following too close, speeding, etc.

Do you get points here for traffic violations towards suspension?

Of course, the city will pay for the victim's injuries.

Man I wish people would just take a breath before going off. He said it would go on his record so there would have to be some offence cited for that to happen. I don't believe COH is self insured so no the city won't pay it will be the insurance company just like it would be if anyone hit someone with their car. I wouldn't get days off for an accident, tho I may lose the company vehicle which is the only thing that the Chief gets to slide on.

If the Chief feels so bad for nailing a non jay walking pedestrian he could always let the pedestrian run him over...

His initial description of the incident to reporters and the later released video was surprising. The video looked much worse than his description. City of Houston's liability is capped at $250,000.