Sheriff Hodgson Says No Laws Broken as Feast Photo Goes Viral

Man, some of y'all are too much. No cop worth their salt is going to bug you and "cuff n stuff" you for having "a beer" while carrying. Act a fool? Get hammered? Now you may have an issue. Bring negative attention to yourself then...you run a risk. If any of you had an 8oz beer (even on an empty stomach...your BAC even with a strong IPA would be very very low) like was claimed here would not be an issue. The Sheriff as a public figure should be a touch smarter but that's his decision.

The million dollar question is the term "under the influence". They use the same BS verbiage in the OUI laws and case law goes on to define it but only as it relates to operating a motor vehicle. How would the.gov go about proving it on the case of carrying a firearm? It's nonsense...and every cop (well, most good ones) knows it. So, act like a drunken fool while carrying and you may get slapped...be reasonable and you won't have an issue (unless you run into those black v white guys...and they do exist).

Risk vs reward fellas...
 
The real question is would the sheriff arrest an ltc carrier for the same thing?

My bet is he would and the DA would prosecute and a judge would convict!

Whaahaa..you stupid little peons think you would get the same treatment as a LEO in any liberal state in the union?
You would be wrong!

Does this guy holding a beer matter. Not one bit.

Just don't think you wouldn't get prosecuted for doing the same!
 
Last edited:
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...

Someone I work with bought up something that you may know the answer to Len. IIRC uniformed officers while on duty aren't allowed to drink. Does the fact that Hodgson wearing his standard polo shirt and badge on his belt like he normally does count as the same?

I think the guy who originally wrote the faceplant article could have worded it better, and I couldn't care less what Hodgson does, but I do think considering who he is that he should have been more a little more conscientious and I'm betting he's thinking it now judging by his response.

“Following the parade Jonathan and I had a Medeira wine before leaving and wasn’t thinking about my piece. That won’t happen again!”
 
oldguy68 said:
The real question is would the sheriff arrest an ltc carrier for the same thing?

My bet is he would and the DA would prosecute and a judge would convict!
Click to expand...

That's cute but in MA despite having LE powers, its pretty rare that a "Sheriff arrests somebody". You might as well be talking about a unicorn being captured.

-Mike
 
SKS Ray said:
Someone I work with bought up something that you may know the answer to Len. IIRC uniformed officers while on duty aren't allowed to drink. Does the fact that Hodgson wearing his standard polo shirt and badge on his belt like he normally does count as the same?

I think the guy who originally wrote the faceplant article could have worded it better, and I couldn't care less what Hodgson does, but I do think considering who he is that he should have been more a little more conscientious and I'm betting he's thinking it now judging by his response.

“Following the parade Jonathan and I had a Medeira wine before leaving and wasn’t thinking about my piece. That won’t happen again!”
Click to expand...

There is no law about uniformed officers drinking, it's a work rule/department regulation issue only. I've been at a victory party for a politician when an officer in uniform walked in (he did have a civilian jacket over his police shirt, but the pants with the stripe/holster hanging down was more than obvious), sat at the bar and drank beer (he was armed, he was not in the town he works for however, IDK if he was officially on duty or not, he was a well-known "problem")! I was not impressed and nobody made a big deal of it, no-one said a word to him or his chief about it.


drgrant said:
That's cute but in MA despite having LE powers, its pretty rare that a "Sheriff arrests somebody". You might as well be talking about a unicorn being captured.

-Mike
Click to expand...

Thanks Mike. Just like Constables have arrest powers for numerous crimes, we don't go running around making arrests. Sheriffs manage a large department, the jails, etc. and don't go out making arrests on the "street".
 
In God We Trust said:
Can someone cite an instance of this happening?
Click to expand...

Doubt they can, but this is mass... few people have that level of audacity to poke the bear. Not exactly a high sample rate. That said... I've heard of enough (verifiable/legit) CUI incidents to know that its enforced by douche LEOs on even the flimsiest of premises.

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
That's cute but in MA despite having LE powers, its pretty rare that a "Sheriff arrests somebody". You might as well be talking about a unicorn being captured.

-Mike
Click to expand...

When I was like 19 working at D'Angelos I was talking to a couple dudes from the sheriff's dept. and asked them what exactly they do. I was more worried about being pulled over doing something in my Trans Am than anything lol. They were like "basically we transport prisoners. we could pull you over, but won't"
 
rwl1955 said:
*******
What's wrong with making prisoners work for the citizens they committed crimes against and are paying their room and board?
Click to expand...


Labor is paid for in America. Prison is about rehabilitation and punishment, not free labor for connected public contractors.
 
In God We Trust said:
Can someone cite an instance of this happening?
Click to expand...

drgrant said:
Doubt they can, but this is mass... few people have that level of audacity to poke the bear. Not exactly a high sample rate. That said... I've heard of enough (verifiable/legit) CUI incidents to know that its enforced by douche LEOs on even the flimsiest of premises.

-Mike
Click to expand...

From earlier in the thread;

http://www.eagletribune.com/news/tw...cle_45a0fda7-fad3-5abf-8f01-b5c39ef7c6f0.html
 
Everything I've read about Hodgson indicates that he's a conservative and pro 2A. Which won't stop some people from attacking him. Yes, the law is stupid and gives way too much discretion to the cops and DA. There was a provision in the 2014 law to set an actual level for FUI just as there is for DUI. Sadly, it was dropped from the final version.

That's one of those "small bite of the elephant" things that GOAL could work on since the MA Court of Appeals has closed the door on a definitive number and left it to the unfettered discretion of the police and DA.
 
firestorm said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I said grasping at straws. However, this also has the bonus of him getting preferential treatment vs. your everyday plebe
 
W.E.C said:
Labor is paid for in America. Prison is about rehabilitation and punishment, not free labor for connected public contractors.
Click to expand...
*****
Rehabilitation is more than sitting on your ass in a jail cell or working out in a gym. You don't get rehabilitated without training and counseling. What's wrong w/policing the roads and byways of your State, participating in public works projects to pay back your debt to society?
 
rwl1955 said:
*****
Rehabilitation is more than sitting on your ass in a jail cell or working out in a gym. You don't get rehabilitated without training and counseling. What's wrong w/policing the roads and byways of your State, participating in public works projects to pay back your debt to society?
Click to expand...
[iwojima][iwojima][iwojima][horse][horse][horse][horse][troll][troll][troll][troll][kiss]
 
snax said:
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.
Click to expand...

And you aren't operating "under the influence" unless you're over the legal limit. Same here, under the influence means your blood alcohol level is greater than .08. You have some breathalyzer printout from that day that you want to share with us? Statists... [rolleyes]
 
rwl1955 said:
*****
He wasn't breaking a law and it seems he was carrying in an official capacity. A civilian can't open carry(i know there's no Ma. law preventing it) whether drinking or not.
Click to expand...

So his defense is he was just drinking on the job, not on his LTC? Cool!
 
rwl1955 said:
*****
Rehabilitation is more than sitting on your ass in a jail cell or working out in a gym. You don't get rehabilitated without training and counseling. What's wrong w/policing the roads and byways of your State, participating in public works projects to pay back your debt to society?
Click to expand...

He's probably worried about taking away some union work! [laugh]
 
rwl1955 said:
*******
We live in a anti-gun, anti-freedom State thanks to liberal hypocrites. We are the hunted, get used to it.
Click to expand...
We're also, in a way, part of the problem - for allowing it to get so absolutely rucking fidiculous here, and not lawsuiting after lawsuiting the living piss out of this absolute Liberal hell hole.
 
GlockJock said:
We're also, in a way, part of the problem - for allowing it to get so absolutely rucking fidiculous here, and not lawsuiting after lawsuiting the living piss out of this absolute Liberal hell hole.
Click to expand...

I think the Scientology legal approach might be a good idea at this point.
 
GlockJock said:
We're also, in a way, part of the problem - for allowing it to get so absolutely rucking fidiculous here, and not lawsuiting after lawsuiting the living piss out of this absolute Liberal hell hole.
Click to expand...

Your absolutely right!
We have to accept part of the blame for not holding those that break our civil rights accountable for their actions!
We put these politician's in office and we allow unjust laws to be made!

400,000 people in MA pay to exercise their right that the second amendment bestows on each citizen of the United States at birth.
But ask them to to show up at the State House and let their grievances be heard and less than 1 percent show up!

Just like the 13 colonies. Be united or be cut apart!
 
Wrench75 said:
And you aren't operating "under the influence" unless you're over the legal limit. Same here, under the influence means your blood alcohol level is greater than .08. You have some breathalyzer printout from that day that you want to share with us? Statists... [rolleyes]
Click to expand...

Regardless of what they define "under the influence" as, that cup is full. Assuming that's his first drink, he's definitely not under the influence at that point. Hell, even if that cup were full of pure moonshine and he were to chug it, he still wouldn't be "under the influence" for several more minutes, as it can take alcohol up to a half hour to absorb into your bloodstream, even on an empty stomach. At the time the picture was taken (again assuming that's his first drink), he's not under the influence, and if he left 15 minutes later, even after drinking that whole cup, there's very little chance he was under the influence at that point either. For all we know, when he left, he stored his gun and even if he was under the influence, he wasn't CUI.
 

Similar threads

Springfield Armory goes old school
2
Replies
37
Views
888
cathouse01
cathouse01
Finland Goes Pro-Gun
2
Replies
36
Views
975
Picton
Picton
  • Locked
Navy scrubbed this photo can you see why?
Replies
17
Views
747
Mountain
Mountain
Boston gang member who posed with guns on Snapchat goes to prison
2
Replies
31
Views
935
1sern
1
Tyrant NY judge says Second Amendment doesn't exist in her court room
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
3K
paul73
paul73
Back
Top Bottom