DPD Says Drunk Officer Fired Gun in Squad Car

[PrayingForWar]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

The whole scenario in the OP gives rise to an imaginary encounter:

Cop: "Would you mind schtepping outa the car for a field soh...field soh...field sobriety test, (hic) Sir?"

Driver: "You sure you can administer one, officer? I don't want you to get hurt."

That would be taken as a threat.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

PrayingForWar wrote:

Citizen wrote:

The whole scenario in the OP gives rise to an imaginary encounter:

Cop: "Would you mind schtepping outa the car for a field soh...field soh...field sobriety test, (hic) Sir?"

Driver: "You sure you can administer one, officer? I don't want you to get hurt."

That would be taken as a threat.

Good point. Re-write:

Cop: "Would you mind schtepping outa the car for a field soh...field soh...field sobriety test, (hic) Sir?"

Driver: "You sure you can administer one, officer? You look like you are about to fall over.Honestofficer, my car doesn't need help holding itself up. You can let go of the fender."

 

[ManInBlack]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

As far as I am concerned, I see the on-duty officers doing nothing wrong--until and unless someone establishes that the officers knew the drunk officer had done anything wrong besides being drunk.

Seriously? You don't think that there is anything wrong with two ON-DUTY "peace officers" giving a colleague a free ride home using a taxpayer vehicle, gasoline, and time? How many of us ordinary citizens do you think would be allowed to use the "911 Taxi Service?"

What is wrong with you?

 

[Jack House]

imported post

ManInBlack wrote:

eye95 wrote:

As far as I am concerned, I see the on-duty officers doing nothing wrong--until and unless someone establishes that the officers knew the drunk officer had done anything wrong besides being drunk.

Seriously? You don't think that there is anything wrong with two ON-DUTY "peace officers" giving a colleague a free ride home using a taxpayer vehicle, gasoline, and time? How many of use ordinary citizens do you think would be allowed to use the "911 Taxi Service?"

What is wrong with you?

You do realize that squad cars are used for personal business all the time, right?

 

[eye95]

imported post

ManInBlack wrote:

eye95 wrote:

As far as I am concerned, I see the on-duty officers doing nothing wrong--until and unless someone establishes that the officers knew the drunk officer had done anything wrong besides being drunk.

Seriously? You don't think that there is anything wrong with two ON-DUTY "peace officers" giving a colleague a free ride home using a taxpayer vehicle, gasoline, and time? How many of use ordinary citizens do you think would be allowed to use the "911 Taxi Service?"

What is wrong with you?

Seriously. I see nothing wrong with what the on-duty officers did.

In answer to your second paragraph: Nothing. I won't insult you by asking the same question of you. However, I will move on and ignore you in the future. Bye.

 

[ManInBlack]

imported post

Jack House wrote:

You do realize that squad cars are used for personal business all the time, right?

Government "workers" surf kiddie porn on taxpayer computers while on the clock. That doesn't make it right. Both are abuses and wastes of money that was confiscated from citizens by force.

eye95 wrote:

Seriously. I see nothing wrong with what the on-duty officers did.

So you are not only happy to have the government bend you over, but you don't even want them to pay for the privilege? It'll be tough to make that economic model work in your line of business.

 

[Jack House]

imported post

ManInBlack wrote:

Jack House wrote:

You do realize that squad cars are used for personal business all the time, right?

Government "workers" surf kiddie porn on taxpayer computers while on the clock. That doesn't make it right. Both are abuses and wastes of money that was confiscated from citizens by force.

CP is illegal, porn is against regulations. The personal use of a squad car is not only not against regulations, it's one of the advertised perks of the job for a lot of law enforcement agencies.

 

[kwikrnu]

imported post

Jack House wrote:

ManInBlack wrote:

Jack House wrote:

You do realize that squad cars are used for personal business all the time, right?

Government "workers" surf kiddie porn on taxpayer computers while on the clock. That doesn't make it right. Both are abuses and wastes of money that was confiscated from citizens by force.

CP is illegal, porn is against regulations. The personal use of a squad car is not only not against regulations, it's one of the advertised perks of the job for a lot of law enforcement agencies.

Exactly, it's like never having to worry about obeying traffic laws, and getting free donuts and coffee with a flash of the badge.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Jack House wrote:

SNIP The personal use of a squad car is not only not against regulations, it's one of the advertised perks of the job for a lot of law enforcement agencies.

I'm not sure the objection is personal use of a squad car, so much as it is personal use of a squad car during work hours.

If the "helper" cops in the OP were on their way home after shift anyway, that would be something else. But, unless the two"helper" cops were roommates, that explanation ain't gonna work.

 

[erichonda30]

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

Jack House wrote:

ManInBlack wrote:

Jack House wrote:

You do realize that squad cars are used for personal business all the time, right?

Government "workers" surf kiddie porn on taxpayer computers while on the clock. That doesn't make it right. Both are abuses and wastes of money that was confiscated from citizens by force.

CP is illegal, porn is against regulations. The personal use of a squad car is not only not against regulations, it's one of the advertised perks of the job for a lot of law enforcement agencies.

Exactly, it's like never having to worry about obeying traffic laws, and getting free donuts and coffee with a flash of the badge.

thats how it is in new jersey

 

[ManInBlack]

imported post

Jack House wrote:

ManInBlack wrote:

Jack House wrote:

You do realize that squad cars are used for personal business all the time, right?

Government "workers" surf kiddie porn on taxpayer computers while on the clock. That doesn't make it right. Both are abuses and wastes of money that was confiscated from citizens by force.

CP is illegal, porn is against regulations. The personal use of a squad car is not only not against regulations, it's one of the advertised perks of the job for a lot of law enforcement agencies.

I'm pretty sure that personal use of a squad car while on duty is against regulations.

 

[open4years]

imported post

ODA 226 wrote:

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local-beat/DPD-Says-Intoxicated-Officer-Fired-Gun-in-Squad-Car-96623064.html

Unbelieveable! But kudos to Dallas PD for not covering up the incident!

How do we get to see the dash cam video? Or did I miss the link?

 

[open4years]

imported post

Never mind. My iPad can' play it.

 

[KBCraig]

imported post

ecocks wrote:

I don't knowTX law regarding LEO carry while intoxicated (seems obvious she was) but it certainly should be worse for a LEO than whatever standard a lawful citizen is held to (see MD drunken cop shooting incident).

TCLEOSE-certified Texas peace officers are exempt from all state gun laws.

 

[Jack House]

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

ecocks wrote:

I don't knowTX law regarding LEO carry while intoxicated (seems obvious she was) but it certainly should be worse for a LEO than whatever standard a lawful citizen is held to (see MD drunken cop shooting incident).

TCLEOSE-certified Texas peace officers are exempt from all state gun laws.

Proof?

 

[rodbender]

imported post

Jack House wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

ecocks wrote:

I don't knowTX law regarding LEO carry while intoxicated (seems obvious she was) but it certainly should be worse for a LEO than whatever standard a lawful citizen is held to (see MD drunken cop shooting incident).

TCLEOSE-certified Texas peace officers are exempt from all state gun laws.

Proof?

Please, please, pretty please. I gots to see dis.

 

[simmonsjoe]

imported post

Only problem here is the stupid bitch screwed her two friends who were giving her a ride home. They are on restricted duty. Guys were just trying to help out.

 

[KBCraig]

imported post

rodbender wrote:

Jack House wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

ecocks wrote:

I don't knowTX law regarding LEO carry while intoxicated (seems obvious she was) but it certainly should be worse for a LEO than whatever standard a lawful citizen is held to (see MD drunken cop shooting incident).

TCLEOSE-certified Texas peace officers are exempt from all state gun laws.

Proof?

Please, please, pretty please. I gots to see dis.

I don't know Jack House (pardon the allusion), but I figured Rodbender would know this one.

It's very easy: Texas Penal Code 46.02 is "UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS", and PC 46.03 is "PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED".

Scroll right on down through PC 46 to PC 46.15:

Sec.46.15.NONAPPLICABILITY. (a)Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:
(1)peace officers or special investigators under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, and neither section prohibits a peace officer or special investigator from carrying a weapon in this state, including in an establishment in this state serving the public, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator is engaged in the actual discharge of the officer's or investigator's duties while carrying the weapon;

Straight from the Texas statutes: the laws on carrying weapons, and the places weapons are prohibited, do not apply to Texas peace officers.

 

[rodbender]

imported post

All that says is that LEO's are exempt from WHERE they can carry, not that they are exempt from ALL state gun laws.

 

[1245A Defender]

imported post

in TEXAS!!!