If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
What's the problem?
I see him holding it but not drinking it.
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.
[FONT=&]it was simply a celebratory drink following the parade and we left after about 15 minutes,” replied Hodgson.[/FONT]
For all we know he had one 8oz beer. Stop all the ****ing nitpicking BS.
*******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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
I don't pick up trash on the side of the highway, so for now I feel fairly safe about my job.
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")