TexasCHLforum.com

JP171 wrote:JM,

The questions about weapons may seem valid on the surface, however the medic should advise the LEO as the medic probably has a better line on suicidal ideology than the officer, extrapiramidal reactions are not usually the cause of concerne to suicidal ideation, should the woman have a history of similar behavior the medic should know and move toward that DX, however with the available info this seems like the LEO ran the DL of all parties involved and made a blanket statement or order(civilian leo can't give orders) or directive that was not followed, we have no duty to follow such directives on the 3 3 rule 3 seconds or 3 feet. I am not really being as bad as you might think but I dislike the attitude that civilians must do as the LEO says cause he ain't a civilian(yes he/she is cause they ain't military) the leo gets upset because he or she believes that they have absolute authority and control over another civilian and contemp of cop applies, but there is no such charge or law or rule, a LEO is a CIVILIAN period, I have the right to ignore anything he says period, just can't interfere with him doing his job.

The dictionary disagrees with you...

ci·vil·ian   [si-vil-yuhn]
noun
1.
a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
2.
Informal . anyone regarded by members of a profession, interest group, society, etc., as not belonging; nonprofessional; outsider: We need a producer to run the movie studio, not some civilian from the business world.
3.
a person versed in or studying Roman or civil law.

jmra wrote:
No argument here.

Yup. That's what I was thinking too, but wasn't sure.

sjfcontrol wrote: The dictionary disagrees with you...

ci·vil·ian   [si-vil-yuhn]
noun
1.
a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
2.
Informal . anyone regarded by members of a profession, interest group, society, etc., as not belonging; nonprofessional; outsider: We need a producer to run the movie studio, not some civilian from the business world.
3.
a person versed in or studying Roman or civil law.

Well there is the rest of the definition you posted.
"Informal . anyone regarded by members of a profession, interest group, society, etc., as not belonging;"
If your not in my profession, your a civilian .. "Civilian" that's not a derogatory word or position in of itself, it is a belief and Norm though.

At the same time, I would not lump LEO's into the Civilian pool.... just a segregated section of the Non Civilian Deep end.....

It is true that since I am no longer in the military I am a civilian, but in the context of my living here, I am a citizen.

Anygunanywhere

WildBill wrote:

snatchel wrote:Side note that I'm not sure anyone has considered--and I didn't see it mentioned. Legal assistance is free if you are military and use military lawyers. That said, if I were him and I was innocent, I would fight the case too. I'd have nothing to lose monetarily other than what would be lost anyway (the TRP). He can afford to ride it out.

He is not using a military lawyer.

I would never trust a Military Lawyer to defend me in a civil case.

I also agree with Bronco78. The Army must not be highly concerned with this issue. If they were he would have been put on legal-hold and not PCSed to another duty-station.

C-dub wrote:

bizarrenormality wrote:

C-dub wrote:So, am I required by law when asked for ID inside my home or on my property to inform or provide my CHL to the officer? I don't think I am, but it might be foolish not to.

If you're armed when the peace officer demands ID, you're required to display both, but now it has the same penalty as DPS not issuing CHL plastic within the mandated time limit.

Oh, I absolutely understand that the penalty has been removed for not displaying my CHL, but like the MPA, I and neither does anyone else require a CHL to be carrying at or in their home and my ID might be sitting on my nightstand and not on my person.

The law that states that we must show both ID and CHL if armed when asked for ID does not make any distinction about the circumstances of our being armed. CHL, MPA, or in our own home or business. None of that matters. If we have a CHL and we are armed and asked for ID we must show both ID and CHL.

Nice definition. Most LEO are not part of my profession so theyre civilians.

JP171 wrote:JM,

The questions about weapons may seem valid on the surface, however the medic should advise the LEO as the medic probably has a better line on suicidal ideology than the officer, extrapiramidal reactions are not usually the cause of concerne to suicidal ideation, should the woman have a history of similar behavior the medic should know and move toward that DX, however with the available info this seems like the LEO ran the DL of all parties involved and made a blanket statement or order(civilian leo can't give orders) or directive that was not followed, we have no duty to follow such directives on the 3 3 rule 3 seconds or 3 feet. I am not really being as bad as you might think but I dislike the attitude that civilians must do as the LEO says cause he ain't a civilian(yes he/she is cause they ain't military) the leo gets upset because he or she believes that they have absolute authority and control over another civilian and contemp of cop applies, but there is no such charge or law or rule, a LEO is a CIVILIAN period, I have the right to ignore anything he says period, just can't interfere with him doing his job.

The common parlance these days is that sworn officers are the "us's", and everyone else is a "them," a mere civilian. It's part of the patois of the so-called "Blue Mafia."

JALLEN wrote:

JP171 wrote:JM,

The questions about weapons may seem valid on the surface, however the medic should advise the LEO as the medic probably has a better line on suicidal ideology than the officer, extrapiramidal reactions are not usually the cause of concerne to suicidal ideation, should the woman have a history of similar behavior the medic should know and move toward that DX, however with the available info this seems like the LEO ran the DL of all parties involved and made a blanket statement or order(civilian leo can't give orders) or directive that was not followed, we have no duty to follow such directives on the 3 3 rule 3 seconds or 3 feet. I am not really being as bad as you might think but I dislike the attitude that civilians must do as the LEO says cause he ain't a civilian(yes he/she is cause they ain't military) the leo gets upset because he or she believes that they have absolute authority and control over another civilian and contemp of cop applies, but there is no such charge or law or rule, a LEO is a CIVILIAN period, I have the right to ignore anything he says period, just can't interfere with him doing his job.

The common parlance these days is that sworn officers are the "us's", and everyone else is a "them," a mere civilian. It's part of the patois of the so-called "Blue Mafia."

I thought they had 3-groups.

Good Guys (Cops, etc.)
Bad Guys (Self-explanatory)
Civilians (People not yet lumped into either of the two groups above)

Purplehood wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

JP171 wrote:JM,

The questions about weapons may seem valid on the surface, however the medic should advise the LEO as the medic probably has a better line on suicidal ideology than the officer, extrapiramidal reactions are not usually the cause of concerne to suicidal ideation, should the woman have a history of similar behavior the medic should know and move toward that DX, however with the available info this seems like the LEO ran the DL of all parties involved and made a blanket statement or order(civilian leo can't give orders) or directive that was not followed, we have no duty to follow such directives on the 3 3 rule 3 seconds or 3 feet. I am not really being as bad as you might think but I dislike the attitude that civilians must do as the LEO says cause he ain't a civilian(yes he/she is cause they ain't military) the leo gets upset because he or she believes that they have absolute authority and control over another civilian and contemp of cop applies, but there is no such charge or law or rule, a LEO is a CIVILIAN period, I have the right to ignore anything he says period, just can't interfere with him doing his job.

The common parlance these days is that sworn officers are the "us's", and everyone else is a "them," a mere civilian. It's part of the patois of the so-called "Blue Mafia."

I thought they had 3-groups.

Good Guys (Cops, etc.)
Bad Guys (Self-explanatory)
Civilians (People not yet lumped into either of the two groups above)

Dirtballs are a subgroup of civilian. Here in California, the terms are near synonymous. Everyone is a dirtball until proven innocent, or so they often act. That's why civilians, aka dirtballs, shouldn't have guns.

One of the many refreshing things about Texas is that ordinary responsible "good citizens" are seen as an aid to proper law enforcement rather than an enemy thereof.

I am tempted to take a few days of vacation and drive down to Killeen and watch the trial. I am sure they will all but disregard the "illegal carry in a hospital" charge since it isn't illegal, and focus on the "smell of alcohol" and "contempt of cop" charges since those are vague and easily overstated for a jury.

Does anyone know what court he will be tried in, if it gets that far?

Jaguar wrote:I am tempted to take a few days of vacation and drive down to Killeen and watch the trial. I am sure they will all but disregard the "illegal carry in a hospital" charge since it isn't illegal, and focus on the "smell of alcohol" and "contempt of cop" charges since those are vague and easily overstated for a jury.

Does anyone know what court he will be tried in, if it gets that far?

I believe it will be in the Belton, TX municipal court. You could email his lawyer to find out for sure.

It will be the Bell County Courts-at-law, but I don't know which one. If they manage to get one of the charges up to a felony, it could be any of several district courts that cover that county.

Message sent to SSG Sampson; And I received a response...


----- Original Message -----
From: Sampson, Nathaniel SSG MIL USA FORSCOM [mailto:nathaniel.sampson@us.army.mil]
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 12:40 AM
To: Marquez, Erik J SGM USARMY (US)
Subject: Re: Confirmation of ID (UNCLASSIFIED)

UNCLASSIFIED
SGM Marquez; I am the same SSG Sampson mentioned in the article you read.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your concern, and inform you that I have brought this to my attorney's attention and am waiting for his response

On 10/26/12, "Marquez, Erik J SGM USARMY (US)" wrote:
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
> Confirmation of ID.
>
> SSG Sampson; Are you the same SSG Sampson as the one mentioned in this
> article?
> http://www.tdtnews.com/index/news/show/ ... aces+legal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
> +battl
> e+over+gun:+Concealed+gun+license+holder+brought+weapon+into+hospital
>
> If so, and you are in need of assistance for defending your case. A
> group of concerned Texans has expressed interest in helping, based on
> the limited info available in the media.
>
> If I have the right Soldier, and you / your lawyer are interested,
> feel free to contact me at this address.
>
> Erik Marquez
>
>
> Erik Marquez
> SGM, 1CD
> G3 SGM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
UNCLASSIFIED

I Spoke to Mr Sampson’s lawyer this morning... I am meeting him Friday for a longer discussion.
Thus far, this case is what it has been alluded to here, wrongfully accused initially, and amended charges added that have no merit but cannot be proved as wrongly charged, just not supportable.

Im told the NRA will not weigh in with support as this case does not deal in a rights issue or constitutional issue.

That leaves Mr Sampson to mount his own defense, at his own cost.
The lawyer handing the case, former military enlisted, retired as a Master Sergeant, went to school, completed law degree, and started his practice right back here in the Belton area.
Is a NRA member, active in shooting sports (if you do steel challenges at the Temple club you may know him)

Im not willing to stand behind Mr Sampson, nor drop a dime in a bucket for his defense…. But Im close on both accounts..
Those who may be interested in doing that same, check back here after Friday… I’ll lay out everything I know,, and if any are interested in donating to Mr Sampson I’ll ask the lawyer to set something up.