Comments on: Buckin Bull Lands Gun-Totin Deputy In Deep Doo Doo

By: steve lewis

steve lewis — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 01:11:22 +0000

Driller, get a grip!!! I have personally seen people receive summons/cites for misdemeanor offenses. This happens every day. Your assumption that there is a “unwritten” directive is pure speculation on your part, and I believe that is now being exposed for what it is!!!

By: Driller

Driller — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 20:30:31 +0000

He most certainly did get preferential treatment; any other person would have been immediately arrested and forced to bond out or sit in jail until arraignment the next business day in magistrate court. Law enforcement has discretion whether to arrest or issue a citation, but their “discretion” has been overridden by unwritten department directives, the existence of which is fervently denied, to arrest on all misdemeanors. This deputy was an exception to the shall-arrest policy, and it needs further attention.

Note also that arrests provide income not only to bondsmen, but to the Ada County Sheriff’s Office, which exacts a fee for each release on bond. It’s pure authoritarianism and revenuing, and needs to be exposed for what it is.

By: Zippo

Zippo — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 02:40:05 +0000

I do think if he (may have) commited a crime he should see the Judge about it, not just his boss.

By: Sisyphus

Sisyphus — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:17:00 +0000

Steve, nobody learns from mistakes if they aren’t punished accordingly. The one thing we can tell from the paucity of information provided is that the officer IS NOT being held to the same standards of everyone else, since anyone else would have had their CWP revoked. Such formalities are avoided from the process HA81 provided (but isn’t it interesting that neither weapon was his service revolver). He was caught drinking, maybe to excess, in a crowded night club, riding a mechanical bull, with, not one, but TWO weapons on his person. Not only that, he became confrontational when asked to leave. Just the appearance alone could have been grounds for termination.

By: erico49

erico49 — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 19:10:44 +0000

It’s interesting. Blood alcohol content as measured by blood test or breath is applicable only to DUI, I think. As I remember, back in the day, they had to prove that you were impaired. That turned out to be hard, so the law was written tying it strictly to the test result.. no need to prove impairment. Much easier to prosecute. Not sure if those numbers apply to any other situation other than being able to say “he would not have been able to drive legally.”

EDITOR NOTE–In this case the judgement of the arresting officers will likely prevail…thick tongue speech, eyes, odor on breath, etc. Coppers certainly know how to tell if someone is under the influence. The BA results are just the key in the lock for DUI.

By: HA81

HA81 — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:58:44 +0000

Once an officer is certified and passed the Idaho P.O.S.T. requirements they are not required to have a concealed weapon permit. As long as they are carrying proper department I.D. they are not obliged to obtain a permit from the Sheriff like everyone else

Editors note on Steve’s comment: The purpose of writing somone a citation (misdemeanor) versus arresting them is to give them a date to make them promise to appear in court to take care of the manner. There are several reasons why an officer may choose to cite a person into court rather than to arrest such as, the person is not a flight risk (a police officer), the officer belives the person will appear in court, the suspect is not combative, or the jail maybe full and not accepting non violent offenders at the time ect. The officer on the other hand may choose to arrest the offending party because he believes the subject needs to be removed from the premise for his saftey, that the subject is a flight risk, or that he may commit another crime.

EDITOR NOTE–Well stated and we agree with your explanation.

By: paul

paul — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:51:53 +0000

here is what i found..
“A concealed weapon, even with a permit, cannot be carried while one is intoxicated; nor can it be carried into a courthouse; juvenile detention facility; jail; or public or private school or school activity areas or school provided transportation”

the question now becomes did they do a blood alcohol test to prove this guy was beyond the limits of sobriety?

By: erico49

erico49 — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:17:16 +0000

the law says that “any person” may not carry concealed while “intoxicated or under the influence of an intoxicating drink or drug.” The code doesn’t mention only those people with a permit, so I assume it applies to all. It’s a misdemeanor.

By: paul

paul — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 04:32:25 +0000

If I recall correctly law enforcement can carry concealed weapons off dugy by statute. There is the question of blood alcohol.

Judges, police/sheirffs, officers of the courts, and prison guards fall under this statute if I remember correctly.

I do not remember reading anything about consuming alcohol limiting the conceal carry permits for law enforcment personnel.

Does anyone know the deal here?

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 00:26:18 +0000

EDITOR, probablys don’t matter here, every day there are many citizens that are not law enforcement given cites for offenses they could go to jail for. This is a FACT, not a “probably”. SISYPHUS, high standards are what we expect of law enforcment, but again, they are human. They make mistakes, admit to those mistakes, learn from those mistakes, take their punishment, and still go out and do their job protecting those that need it. Again, enough said!