Sheriff Hodgson Says No Laws Broken as Feast Photo Goes Viral

mikeyp

mikeyp

Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
14,519
Likes
29,612
Location
Plymouth
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
I'm sure We the People would have no issues doing this, right?

HODGSON-FULL-PHOTO.jpg



http://wbsm.com/sheriff-hodgson-no-laws-broken-as-feast-photo-goes-viral/
 
Ya, I don't see a problem here. Just antis making mountains

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
Law doesnt say "intoxicated" says under the influence of intoxicating liquor.... i would say he needs to pay up and spend 2 years in the pen.
 
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 269, Section 10H*states that “Whoever, having in effect a license to carry firearms issued under section 131 or 131F of chapter 140, carries on his person, or has under his control in a vehicle, a loaded firearm, as defined in section 121 of said chapter 140, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor….shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000 or by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”

The article says that .08 is the legal limit at which point you are considered to be intoxicated. I submit that "under the influence" can, and likely HAS been, construed to mean "any detectable amount" if it serves .gov's purpose.

So if he had a sip, he could be considered "under the influence" and we the taxpayers would be paying to settle the lawsuit if he misbehaved. Also, did he have a drink/beer earlier that warm summer day?

Lastly, who anywhere, EVER, calls their firearm a "piece" with a straight face? Do we now also need to worry about "piece violence"?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
rwl1955 said:
What's the problem?
Click to expand...

The laws that apply only to plebs...that's all I see. There are plenty of absolutists who would flip out if they saw someone taking even a sip while carrying. I could be wrong but, I assume that's the implication here.
 
I don't see an actual problem, obviously a difference between someone "having a couple" and someone being tanked. But would a regular gun owner get the same treatment as an LEO with a drink in their hand and OC'ing?
 
milktree said:
I'm guessing that if you were holding, but not drinking, a beer in public and carrying a gun on your hip you'd get arrested and charged with at least five felonies.
Click to expand...

Probably. But doesn't the lawr say "under the influence"? Maybe he was holding his buddy's beer while that dude was in the can?

But, massprudence.
 
For all we know he had one 8oz beer. Stop all the ****ing nitpicking BS.

[FONT=&amp]it was simply a celebratory drink following the parade and we left after about 15 minutes,” replied Hodgson.[/FONT]
Click to expand...
 
This is what I hate most - how MA gun laws are so intentionally vague and convoluted so that they can be used to pile on or jam up otherwise law abiding commoners.

At exactly what point in time is someone "under the influence"? Is that a scientific measure or political construct? When the evil liquor touches their lips? When it hits the gullet? Enters the bloodstream? Causes observable changes to perception, physical or emotional or behaviors? When exactly?

So if I take down a beer then immediately remove and store my "piece" before I am "under the influence" is that "ok"? All subjective depending if they want to lynch you or not.
 
I always ASSUMED that in ma you cant consume any alcohol while carrying? Guess if I go drinking with the sheriff im ok!

BTW I don't hate hodgson, do like how he wants to work prisoners...why should these dirt bags sit around all day watching jerry springer while I work!
 
MichaelJames1971 said:
We're not picking-on the Sheriff - we're picking on the fact that if it were you or me holding that drink, we'd be cuffed-n-stuffed, at Gunpoint, by the same Sheriff in the same situation. That gun would get confiscated, and you know it.
Click to expand...
*******
We live in a anti-gun, anti-freedom State thanks to liberal hypocrites. We are the hunted, get used to it.
 
1jeep said:
I always ASSUMED that in ma you cant consume any alcohol while carrying? Guess if I go drinking with the sheriff im ok!

BTW I don't hate hodgson, do like how he wants to work prisoners...why should these dirt bags sit around all day watching jerry springer while I work!
Click to expand...

cause they will be replacing you ,you know, free prison labor looks better than paying you.

but if you think you cant be replaced by an inmate,

we can make you an inmate , and put you to work. same desk, less money.
 
I say leave well enough alone... at the very least him not getting jambed up sets a precedent. The next commoner that gets pinched carrying with someone else's wet empty beer can in the bed of the truck will at least have something to point at... it'll be grasping at straws, but it's better than grasping at thin air.

.02

(and as far as "under the influence" goes, seeing a beer in my fridge always makes me smile..."influence")
 
A couple of things wrt the article:

- It is wrong wrt "under the influence" . . . MGL C. 140 has NO definition of that term and the 0.08 referenced legally only applies to operating a motor vehicle (C. 90) and does not carry over to any other chapter of MGL.
- Who knows if the Sheriff has a LTC? If he doesn't and it carrying on the badge, the referenced MGL does NOT apply and he certainly would not be violating any law! Interesting possibility.
- 7 oz of wine on an empty stomach could definitely impair some people but if he also had food recently it is unlikely to cause any perceptible impairment.

Whatever, given his position, cell cameras and social media, plus considerable hatred for him, his choice of actions was unwise. However, I'm certain that if he weren't carrying but still wearing that shirt and having a drink, there still would have been outcries on social media for his head.
 
Google his name.
Bill Weld appointee, Boston Glob editorial "Bristol County deserves a better sheriff" (6/25/17,) another recent Glob hit piece "Sheriff Hodgson strikes again" and recently outspoken in support of Trumpish immigration reform regarding Chitcago sanctuary status.

Stick him with a fork. He's done.


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • hodgson.jpg
    hodgson.jpg
    96.9 KB · Views: 463
mikeyp said:
I don't see an actual problem, obviously a difference between someone "having a couple" and someone being tanked. But would a regular gun owner get the same treatment as an LEO with a drink in their hand and OC'ing?
Click to expand...

Depends on SOLEY whether or not the LEO dealing with said citizen is a large type douchebag or not.

-Mike
 
W.E.C said:
cause they will be replacing you ,you know, free prison labor looks better than paying you.

but if you think you cant be replaced by an inmate,

we can make you an inmate , and put you to work. same desk, less money.
Click to expand...

I don't pick up trash on the side of the highway, so for now I feel fairly safe about my job.
 
Len-2A Training said:
A couple of things wrt the article:

- It is wrong wrt "under the influence" . . . MGL C. 140 has NO definition of that term and the 0.08 referenced legally only applies to operating a motor vehicle (C. 90) and does not carry over to any other chapter of MGL.
- Who knows if the Sheriff has a LTC? If he doesn't and it carrying on the badge, the referenced MGL does NOT apply and he certainly would not be violating any law! Interesting possibility.
- 7 oz of wine on an empty stomach could definitely impair some people but if he also had food recently it is unlikely to cause any perceptible impairment.

Whatever, given his position, cell cameras and social media, plus considerable hatred for him, his choice of actions was unwise. However, I'm certain that if he weren't carrying but still wearing that shirt and having a drink, there still would have been outcries on social media for his head.
Click to expand...

I'm going to leave you with an excerpt from Commonwealth v, Verronneau (MA Court of Appeals/Bristol, 2016) .


We disagree that the same degree of intoxication invariably will establish guilt or innocence of both crimes. In accordance with well-established case law interpreting the OUI statute, the phrase “under the influence” refers to impairment, to any degree, of an individual's ability to safely perform the activity in question. Thus, “in a prosecution for [OUI], the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's consumption of alcohol diminished the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle safely.” Commonwealth v. Connolly, 394 Mass. 169, 173 (1985). Likewise, in a prosecution for FUI, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's consumption of alcohol diminished his ability to safely carry a loaded firearm on his person (or have one under his control in a vehicle). Despite their use of common language, however, the statutes concern different instrumentalities and activities. For that reason, a trier of fact rationally may find that a particular individual was sufficiently impaired to be guilty of one offense but not the other.
Here, when the judge announced his findings, he stated that the Commonwealth had carried its burden as to FUI but not as to OUI. This was not inherently contradictory. The judge could have reasoned, for example, that the defendant should get the benefit of the doubt as to impaired operation of the vehicle, given that his breathalyzer test result was lower than the .08 required to establish a violation of the OUI statute under an alternative per se theory. At the same time, the judge also could have reasoned that the defendant's lack of physical coordination—as evinced by his grabbing the vehicle for balance and failing to successfully complete the one-leg stand and the nine-step walk and turn tests—created an unacceptable safety risk that his loaded pistol (with a bullet in the chamber and the safety off) could be discharged.
Click to expand...


(In Verronneau the Appeals Court (Bristol) upheld a conviction for Carrying a Loaded Firearm while Under the INfluence. The appellant had a BAC of .07 and was acquitted of OUI and reckless operation charges).
 
mbullism said:
I say leave well enough alone... at the very least him not getting jambed up sets a precedent. The next commoner that gets pinched carrying with someone else's wet empty beer can in the bed of the truck will at least have something to point at... it'll be grasping at straws, but it's better than grasping at thin air.

.02

(and as far as "under the influence" goes, seeing a beer in my fridge always makes me smile..."influence")
Click to expand...

What you have there is nothing, you can't use the fact that another person was not charged for the same thing as a defense. Since prosecutors have discretion over whether or not to charge someone, the lack of charging someone else in similar circumstances has no bearing on your case as far as a court is concerned.
 

Similar threads

Chicago DA Says Illegal Guns, Drugs and Stolen Property Discovered during Routine Traffic Stops Will Not Be Treated as Offences
Replies
28
Views
710
Thunder Dump
Thunder Dump
Springfield Armory goes old school
2
Replies
37
Views
936
cathouse01
cathouse01
Finland Goes Pro-Gun
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
Picton
Picton
  • Locked
Navy scrubbed this photo can you see why?
Replies
17
Views
762
Mountain
Mountain
Purchase a lower as a lower or rifle?
Replies
23
Views
589
Twigg
Twigg
Back
Top Bottom