Page 4 of 5
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:23 pm
by 40FIVER
I just saw a drunk driver on the road. But I'm not going to report cause I don't drive drunk. Jeez, what an attitude.
You did good, TXI.
40FIVER
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:54 pm
by seamusTX
KBCraig wrote:seamusTX wrote:It would cost around 100 grand, which isn't in their budget.
I doubt it would cost one tenth that, unless they used professional actors. We're not talking about an involved production.
They could do it on a shoestring, but it would be like one of those educational videos that put you to sleep in high school. Imagine 10 hours of that.
People who can write scripts and narrate these things effectively don't work cheap. They're busy making infomercials.
- Jim
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:03 pm
by TxBlonde
MY instrustor told me a few things wrong and I found them out on my own. I also Did not know they are wrong till I found out here that they were wrong.
And I believe that if I pay 125 dollars. I EXPECT TO BE TOLD TRUE AND CORRECT information. I believe that is why we have to take a 10 hr class. So we can learn the truth and the laws.
If not then why am I taking 10 hours out of my time to learn something.
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:03 pm
by ElGato
Txi found six things being taught wrong besides not working the range right and not having a ten hour class, that was all found in a short time, there's no telling how bad it might be if he had sat in on the whole class.
It's not like he is not clear on a couple of point's of law, there's too many thing's wrong.
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:28 pm
by wrt45
nomadcrna wrote:1. The people are responsible for knowing the laws. They should read the particular laws themselves and not take what ANY instructor says.
I would point out that one of the three notarized forms that you must submit is a "Knowledge of Laws" affadavit, in which the applicant swears that he/she has received the relevant material and understands it.
That said, it is not too realistic to assume that the instructor has no responsibility to explain the nuances of the law.
This is one reason I use the TxCHA manual and give a copy to every student. I don't expect them to remember everything I say, and there it is.....in large print.......with plenty of space to take notes.
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:10 am
by Greybeard
Quote: "This is one reason I use the TxCHA manual and give a copy to every student."
Same here. A little extra cost, but worth it.
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:18 pm
by Roger Howard
ElGato wrote:Txi found six things being taught wrong besides not working the range right and not having a ten hour class, that was all found in a short time, there's no telling how bad it might be if he had sat in on the whole class.
It's not like he is not clear on a couple of point's of law, there's too many thing's wrong.
I'm with you Elgato.
I still think TxI did what needed to be done. When you pay an instructor you are paying for a service. would you pay for poor work on your car. You are paying for accurate information so you don't violate the law. The instructor is violating the law by not fulfilling the minimium hour of instruction. IMO 10 hrs is not enought time to cover the statutes you need to cover. I don't want to see the class time lengthened but he shouldn't cut it short either.
Just too much wrong.
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:33 pm
by Skiprr
TraCoun:
txinvestigator: You did what you should have done. Would that we all do what what we should.
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:14 am
by Will938
So let me get this straight then, you can have some amount of alcohol in your system and be carrying? The way it was explained to me you can't have "any detectable amount" of alcohol in your system.
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:23 am
by Roger Howard
Will938 wrote:So let me get this straight then, you can have some amount of alcohol in your system and be carrying? The way it was explained to me you can't have "any detectable amount" of alcohol in your system.
The statute says you cannot carry while intoxicated. It does not say any detectable amount of alcohol. There is no BAC level indicated like .08 for DWI. It leaves it open for LEO's to decide if your intoxicated. I personally will not drink when carrying.
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:04 am
by KBCraig
Will938 wrote:So let me get this straight then, you can have some amount of alcohol in your system and be carrying? The way it was explained to me you can't have "any detectable amount" of alcohol in your system.
That's exactly why this thread is called "Instructor Misinformation".
You were told wrongly. Roger Howard's reply explains the law, but let me add this: a standard of "any detectable amount" is just plain silly. Just rinsed your mouth out with mouthwash? You now have a "detectable amount" of alcohol on your breath. Enjoyed some cordial candies? You have "detectable" alcohol in your system. Suffer one of several chronic disorders? Congratulations, you will always have "detectable" amounts of alcohol in your bloodstream.
Alcohol is a natural substance, and many people have a metabolism that results in some alcohol in their system at all times. It's detectable, albeit at levels far below intoxication.
A grain of sand of sand is detectable, but that doesn't make it a beach.
It's all about the volume and cutoff point, not the "detection".
Kevin
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:22 am
by Will938
To both of you those were my exact sentiments concerning what I had heard. Either way I don't like the idea of my fate being up to the officer's judgement. I've been threatened with public intoxication when I hadn't a drop to drink.
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:45 am
by Roger Howard
Will938 wrote:To both of you those were my exact sentiments concerning what I had heard. Either way I don't like the idea of my fate being up to the officer's judgement. I've been threatened with public intoxication when I hadn't a drop to drink.
That's only part of the reason why I won't drink while carrying. The main reason I don't drink while carrying is if I do have to defend myself/family, I do not want the question of alcohol coming into play.
Just not something I am personally willing to deal with. Needless to say I wind up the designated driver alot.
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:16 am
by txinvestigator
Will938 wrote:So let me get this straight then, you can have some amount of alcohol in your system and be carrying? The way it was explained to me you can't have "any detectable amount" of alcohol in your system.
Didn't read the entire thread Will938?
Regarding carrying while intoxicated;
Here is the law;
§46.035. Unlawful carrying of handgun by license holder.
(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.
It does not say "with any detectable amount of alcohol", or, "after consuming any alcohol". It says "while intoxicated".
The term "legal limit" is a misnomer. It was created by the media to describe a person who, for the purposes of DWI, had a blood alcohol level that was at or above the PRESUMED LEVEL of intoxication. Currently that level is .08%. The DWI law says that a person commits an offense if the person drives "intoxicated", period.
Intoxication is then defined as:
(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.
Regardless of how the person acts or behaves, he is presumed to be intoxicated at .08% or above BAC. However, if the person is BELOW the .08% or refuses to submit a breath sample, definition A can be used to obtain a conviction. The DWI laws require that a person be offered a chance to give a sample of breath or blood if suspected of DWI.
That is the only offense where a BAC test is applicable. For charges like Public Intoxication and Carrying a Concealed Handgun while Intoxicated, definition A is all that is required.
The term "legal limit" is used to describe a .08% BAC, and is applicable for DWI only. Many people believe that if you are below .08%, you are not DWI. That is not true.
The teaching in the CHL class and the subsequent question on the test regarding "no legal limit for CHL" applies to the fact that the .08% means nothing for the purpose of a CHL holder carrying while intoxicated. You are not required to be offered a breath test, nor will you be offered one if a LEO suspects you of being intoxicated while carrying, unless you were also driving at the time.
All the LEO has to suspect is that you do not have 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.
He will establish that by observing your speech, balance, dexterity, eyes and smell of your breath.
If he has probable cause, he can arrest you under that. It would be an illegal arrest to arrest a person if they exhibit no signs of intoxication, but the LEO either observed the person consume alcohol or simply smelled it on your breath.
Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 7:28 pm
by Will938
txinvestigator wrote:Will938 wrote:So let me get this straight then, you can have some amount of alcohol in your system and be carrying? The way it was explained to me you can't have "any detectable amount" of alcohol in your system.
Didn't read the entire thread Will938?
Actually I hadn't, my internet was moving so slow at the time I only opened up the last page to post. ah well