Sword wielding man in Texas City

[Aggie_engr]

I know the dude was a little off his rocker to threaten some one with a sword but why the handgun charge and the need to bring up the fact that he isn't licensed? Is it because he was engaged in criminal activity at the time??? If so, that has nothing to do with not being licensed and having a handgun in your vehicle?


http://galvestondailynews.com/story.las ... e2a13b9d43

Police: Man, 75, threatened Samaritan with sword

By Chris Paschenko
The Daily News
Published February 7, 2009

TEXAS CITY — A 75-year-old man remained jailed Friday after police accused him of threatening to kill a good Samaritan with a sword.

It is unclear whether bond for Carl T. Terry of Texas City had been set as of Friday afternoon, but police said he had been charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and unlawfully carrying a handgun.

Eric Bell, 41, reported to police he stopped to buy gasoline Tuesday about 2:05 p.m. at a convenience store in the 3100 block of Palmer Highway.

He saw a woman, who appeared to be upset, talking with Terry, said Cpl. David Viel, a Texas City police spokesman.

Bell asked the woman whether she was all right and whether she knew the man, Viel said. Terry walked to his truck, pulled out a sword, raised it above his head and threatened Bell, Viel said.

“‘I’ll kill your ass,’” Viel said Terry told Bell. “At which time, the good Samaritan backs away, the old man puts the sword back and goes into the convenience store where he was arrested without incident.”

Viel said no one was injured and that he didn’t immediately know what kind of sword Terry is accused of brandishing.

When officers retrieved the sword from Terry’s truck, they found a handgun, Viel said. Terry didn’t have a permit to carry a handgun, Viel said.

Bond for Terry on the handgun charge was set at $1,500, Viel said.

[CJATE]

don't need a CHL if it's in the truck,

[Aggie_engr]

Right, but my question is why would the police and news reporters make it out to seem that the reason he got a UWC was because they found a handgun in his truck and he is unlicensed? You're response is the exect reason for my question CJATE.

[seamusTX]

This is exactly the case.

The man was legal to have a sword and a handgun in his truck, as long as they were concealed and he was not engaged in criminal activity.

If the story is correct, he committed aggravated assault by threatening someone with a deadly weapon (the sword).

At that point, he lost his 46.02 vehicular exception and was guilty of carrying an illegal knife and handgun.

If he had a CHL, he would not have been committing a violation by having the handgun, though he would still be guilty of aggravated assault.

- Jim

[seamusTX]

I don't see what's idiotic about it. The story is factually correct, with the usual "as reported."

- Jim

[seamusTX]

I don't even see how it is poorly written.

Starting with this paragraph, everything is paraphrased from what a police officer said.

He saw a woman, who appeared to be upset, talking with Terry, said Cpl. David Viel, a Texas City police spokesman.

That's typical of interviews that aren't taped. The reporter has to make notes on paper and can't write down every word.

BTW, I don't know Chris Pachenko personnally, but this is my hometown newspaper. I do know the editor, Heber Taylor, and some of the reporters.

- Jim

[03Lightningrocks]

This is exactly the case.

The man was legal to have a sword and a handgun in his truck, as long as they were concealed and he was not engaged in criminal activity.

If the story is correct, he committed aggravated assault by threatening someone with a deadly weapon (the sword).

At that point, he lost his 46.02 vehicular exception and was guilty of carrying an illegal knife and handgun.

If he had a CHL, he would not have been committing a violation by having the handgun, though he would still be guilty of aggravated assault.

- Jim

Interesting. I was not aware of this loop hole in the law. So you lose the 46.02 vehicular exception if while having the gun in the car you commit a felony? Does this apply to any felony or just aggravated assault? I was already aware that displaying your weapon as a warning to someone was a no-no. I think allot of folks are unaware of this infraction also. It just goes to show that being educated in the legalities involved if one decides to carry concealed in a vehicle.

[seamusTX]

This detail is important: If a person without a CHL commits any offense other than a class C traffic violation, he loses the 46.02 protection and is committing UCW. This would include DWI. Another offense that is rather easy to commit with a vehicle is criminal trespass.

- Jim

[03Lightningrocks]

This detail is important: If a person without a CHL commits any offense other than a class C traffic violation, he loses the 46.02 protection and is committing UCW. This would include DWI. Another offense that is rather easy to commit with a vehicle is criminal trespass.

- Jim

Wow...so a feller with a gun under the seat of his car goes to dinner and decides to just have a keg of beer with his chow...get's pulled over and boom...he is facing multiple offenses. I would be willing to bet that most folks don't realize they can lose the right to carry in the car by committing other crimes.

[seamusTX]

...so a feller with a gun under the seat of his car goes to dinner and decides to just have a couple beers with his chow...

Please don't start another discussion of how many drinks a person can have.

If the driver meets the legal definition of intoxicated, and is found guilty, then he could be charged with and found guilty of UCW also. It would be the prosecutor's choice whether to do that.

DWI by itself is so serious that the prosecutor might not bother.

- Jim

[03Lightningrocks]

...so a feller with a gun under the seat of his car goes to dinner and decides to just have keg of beer with his chow...

Please don't start another discussion of how many drinks a person can have.

If the driver meets the legal definition of intoxicated, and is found guilty, then he could be charged with and found guilty of UCW also. It would be the prosecutor's choice whether to do that.

DWI by itself is so serious that the prosecutor might not bother.

- Jim

LOL...it wasn't my intention to start the how much debate. I was pointing out how one could innocently get in trouble...but I fixed it.

[KRM45]

...so a feller with a gun under the seat of his car goes to dinner and decides to just have a couple beers with his chow...

Please don't start another discussion of how many drinks a person can have.

If the driver meets the legal definition of intoxicated, and is found guilty, then he could be charged with and found guilty of UCW also. It would be the prosecutor's choice whether to do that.

DWI by itself is so serious that the prosecutor might not bother.

- Jim

I don't want to downplay the seriousness of DWI, but I will point out that DWI is generally a class B misd. while UCW is a class A misd. If I was the arresting officer I would certainly file the UCW charge.

As far as the article and the original post, I belive the charges are appropriate. I try not to get involved in domestic situations, but if I had been in this situation I likely would have shot the sword wielding BG.