Texas soldier faces legal battle over gun in hospitial

[SewTexas]

personally, if I'm on the jury and I find out that the officer did not feel that Mr Sampson was intoxicated enough to stop him from driving, nor was he intoxicated enough to ticket him for DWI, I'm going to find that he was not intoxicated enough to charge him for anything else. that's me, but I'm fairly normal in these things.

[jmra]

Where does the driving come from? Where in any of this story does the officer see the guy driving? The officer left the guys house before he did and didn't see him again until he was in the hospital. Enough with the driving already!

Do we even know if the guy drove? Maybe a friend dropped him off. Driving has nothing to do with this unless he was pulled over for dwi which he wasn't. Lets deal with what we know!

[E.Marquez]

Where does the driving come from?

Because he drove

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.

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...

[jmra]

Where does the driving come from?

Because he drove

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.

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...

"Once inside the hospital, Sampson was approached by an officer who had responded to the call at his house less than an hour earlier."
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).

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.

Edited to remove sarcasm.

[E.Marquez]

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.

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]

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.

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.

Nope. Never claimed to be there, never claimed to have inside knowledge. My "guess" is based on logical deductions based on the information made public and the quotes attributed to the suspect. Nothing else.

[mikedude]

I understand, but disagree. I know what the requirements are for arresting these offenses as I do this for a living. While that may be what is written in black and white, that is not how it is enforced in the field or courts. There are certain requirements to make the arrest. Take a public intoxication incident. One can be a .08 BAC and still maintain their functions as described in section A. The .08 is the national standard for driving related offenses. For PI one basically cannot care for their safety or the safety of others. If they didn't fall under section A, they would not be arrested. Section B would not be known because they would have never been administered a chemical/breath test. Additionally if they were not driving, or violating section A, there is no basis for an arrest. Tests are not administered for PI and other non DWI offenses. Sure technically a DWI could be charged under a .08, but that would have special circumstances, a combo with drugs, ect. From what I have read in this case we have not seen anything to describe that. I read he smelled of the odor of an alcoholic beverage, which on it's own, "could" be enough for violating the CHL rule. Not saying it is, but could. Just the smell w/o other objective symptoms, driving observations, ect would not be enough for any DWI charge. Again lets see the reports and affidavits to discuss facts vs. internet hype. Very interesting case.

Whomever is talking to this attorney should ask for copies of this case. They may not want that released as that is the factual information of the incident.

No, this may be how YOUR department handles PI offenses, but legally if you want to charge someone with it then >.08 would be a defacto that says they ARE intoxicated, period. It says no where that .08 only applies to driving only and that section A does not aply to PI or DWI. Point it out to me where it does? There have been many cases of DWI of other types like PC from smell of marijuana or bloodshot eyes and failed FST with a lower than .08 BAC have been made.

For CHL, as in PI, if they are .08 or above, but showing no signs of imparment, they are still legally intoxicated per TPC 46.035. See the definition for a CHL under subsection H 411 government code that specifically points to 49.01 as the definition. That ways if you are imparied (section A), then you are intoxicated, OR if you are >.08 (section B) even if not visually impared, you are intoxicated.

In this case, if there was no BAC taken, then it will be up to the officer ot prove the individual was impaired (49.01 section A) and met the legal deifnition of intoxicated.

This is pointless.

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

[mikedude]

Where does the driving come from? Where in any of this story does the officer see the guy driving? The officer left the guys house before he did and didn't see him again until he was in the hospital. Enough with the driving already!

Do we even know if the guy drove? Maybe a friend dropped him off. Driving has nothing to do with this unless he was pulled over for dwi which he wasn't. Lets deal with what we know!

THANK YOU

[mikedude]

Different news story. This one quotes 4 bottles of alcohol being drank and the subject had a bulge which was recognizable as a weapon. It later said he only drank 4 oz's. I know that it is common knowledge a drunk will state they only had 2 beers. They teach in the DWI courses that ones short term memory is gone after a couple so they are not lying, but really don't know. It sounds like they are quoting from the arrest report . Funny thing was on the forum I found this, one was bagging on LEO's suggesting they take a CHL course to know TX laws. I took the CHL course when I moved to TX and the instruction CONSTANTLY bagged on LEO's during the course. He bagged on them to the point it was ridiculous.

BELTON — A 29-year-old Fort Hood soldier, a nine-year veteran with three deployments to Iraq under his belt, is refusing what most would consider a generous misdemeanor plea offer made after he was charged for carrying his personal gun into Metroplex Hospital in Killeen.


Following a pre-trial hearing Friday, during which a trial date was set for Dec. 3, Staff Sgt. Nathaniel Sampson said, “I’m not going to take the plea because I didn’t do anything wrong.”


Furthermore, Sampson wants his gun back and the charges dropped.


The troubles for Sampson started early in the morning on March 30 when he went to Metroplex to visit his then-girlfriend, now-wife, Mollie Sampson, who the couple said had just been taken from their home by ambulance after she had an adverse reaction to a mix of alcohol and headache medicine.


Mollie Sampson said Friday that she didn’t remember what medication she had taken but the reaction left her trembling, unable to stand and with a dangerous blood pressure reading.


Both insist there was no violence involved. They say Mollie simply drank too much that night and mixed it with a drug that caused a reaction that scared them.


A police report used to charge Sampson with carrying a concealed weapon into a hospital indicates that the couple drank four bottles of wine together.


Sampson said his wife drank heavily that night, but he stopped hours earlier after only 4 ounces because the wine “tasted like sand and water.”


When the incident happened, Sampson said he was the privately owned weapons liaison for his battalion, or the soldier charged with explaining Texas handgun laws to other soldiers who might have questions.


Following his arrest, the military stripped Sampson of that responsibility, but he is still able to recite the concealed handgun code with unusual recall, as he did Friday after his pre-trial hearing.


Sampson, as was his custom just about every time he left his home, secured his handgun to his side and headed for Metroplex on the night his wife had the reaction.


He knew certain hospitals in the state ban private gun owners, concealed weapons permits or not, from bringing guns inside the facilities. He said he checked the entrances of Metroplex for signs warning against carrying his gun inside, and, finding none, entered.


“There are still no signs,” said Sampson’s attorney Kurt Glass, a retired Army veteran.


Once inside the hospital, Sampson was approached by an officer who had responded to the call at his house less than an hour earlier.


The officer spotted a bulge in Sampson’s clothing. He and a security guard then took possession of Sampson’s Springfield 1911 TRP and arrested Sampson even though he says he was reciting to them the law that allowed him to carry it.


Sampson said he gave detailed instructions that would have allowed the officer to easily find the law on the Internet using his smartphone, but instead of acknowledgment by the officer of a possible error, Sampson said he was handcuffed and lead away from the hospital.


Prosecutor Ken Kalafut said Friday that the officer had warned Sampson while at his home that if he came to the hospital he should leave his weapons at home.


Sampson disputes that, too.


“He was worried my wife was a suicide risk and warned me not to have weapons near her in the home,” Sampson said. “I told him his fears were outrageous, that she was drunk and took something for a headache that was affecting her.”


Sampson said he willingly complied with everything that was asked of him at the hospital and did not create a disturbance.


The police officer reported smelling alcohol on Sampson’s breath, but Sampson said a test to determine blood-alcohol content was never administered.


The charge Sampson faces is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $4,000.


Glass said Sampson rejected a plea offer that would have required him to pay a $100 fine and court costs and forfeit his weapon.


“That’s a $2,000 gun that was a gift from my wife after my last combat tour,” Sampson said. “I’m not giving that up.”


On Wednesday, the sides were at an impasse with a trial date set for Monday when Kalafut amended the charge to include a designation that alleges Sampson was intoxicated while in the hospital with his gun, a clear violation of the concealed handgun law.


“It strengthens our case,” Kalafut said. Potential jurors could choose between either charge to convict Sampson, if, based on evidence, they believe one or the other is true, he said.


Following the mid-week filing just days before trial and months after the initial charge was filed, Glass, who believes the case should be thrown out, said, “I definitely think there’s an anti-gun agenda.”


Sampson said he believes his second amendment rights are being attacked and vows to keep fighting.


With the resolution of the case pending, Sampson has orders to move to Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri later this month. It’s unclear at this point whether the Army will allow him to leave and come back for a trial or if he will stay at Fort Hood until the case is resolved.


“I know most people would shut up and roll over,” Sampson said. “I’m not going to do that. I didn’t do anything wrong.”

[sjfcontrol]

Same article was linked to in the 6th post in this thread. Nothing new.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=58991#p724090" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(first link)

[Heartland Patriot]

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]

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]

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.

I believe there is much to this story we will never know.

[mikedude]

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.

My reply was directed to the person that was debating the alcohol sections. I chose to quit the debate as I stated it was pointless.

[Keith B]

In this case, if there was no BAC taken, then it will be up to the officer to prove the individual was impaired (49.01 section A) and met the legal definition of intoxicated.

This is pointless.

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

We know there was no BAC taken as the person was only charged with the intoxication offense AFTER they realized that the 'carrying in a hospital' charge was not valid. In thithease teh arresting osaider saif he smelled alcohol on the person.

Now, it will be up to the prosecution to prove that the CHL holder met 49.01 (2) (A) below.

Sec. 49.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Alcohol concentration" means the number of grams of alcohol per:
(A) 210 liters of breath;
(B) 100 milliliters of blood; or
(C) 67 milliliters of urine.

(2) "Intoxicated" means:
(A) 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; or
(B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

This is the poriton that will be the toughest to prove unless there is evidence or a witeness that will testify that the soldier 'appeared intoxicated' and that source be a credible witness (i.e. LEO or Phyiscian). The mere existance of alcohol on the breath does not meet the requirements to show that the person met the definition required by law for a CHL ((49.01 (2) (A)) to be legally 'intoxicated'.