Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41

Thread: McAllen Police Illegally Arrest Law Abiding Citizen

  1. #1
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318

    McAllen Police Illegally Arrest Law Abiding Citizen

    Not sure when this arrest actually took place, I think it is "one of the first" so to speak. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKi_u_VzF68 I think that this video has not been released until now, though.
    Advocate freedom please

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Not sure when this arrest actually took place, I think it is "one of the first" so to speak. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKi_u_VzF68 I think that this video has not been released until now, though.
    The citizen in the video is an idiot.

    If he wanted to file a complaint against the cops he should have hired an attorney to represent him and he should have had his attorney file the complaint.

    In the comments section below the youtube video are many recommendations to sue the cops. Any lawsuit would have to be approved by the DA before being allowed to proceed, which would never happen.

    Notice that it took several months before the charges were dropped. The authorities are hoping that you violate one of the terms of your release during this period (which is usually much longer than just a few months) and once you do so you can be found guilty of that violation even if the original charge was bogus. This is how our criminal justice system works here in Amerika.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    True...

    It's the "Criminal Legal System" really -- JUSTICE has little to do with it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Augustin View Post
    In the comments section below the youtube video are many recommendations to sue the cops. Any lawsuit would have to be approved by the DA before being allowed to proceed, which would never happen.
    Just for clarification, are you saying that a civil suit against the officer and/or his department must be approved by the District Attorney before it can proceed in civil court?

    That isn't my understanding of how it works.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    Just for clarification, are you saying that a civil suit against the officer and/or his department must be approved by the District Attorney before it can proceed in civil court?

    That isn't my understanding of how it works.
    If one wishes to sue the dept/cop outside of a 42 usc 1983 or similar claim then there is a procedure for the state to be requested to allow the state to be sued (they drop immunity) ... but for a local municipal corp. they have no such iron-tight exception although they have some degree of immunity. I doubt a DA is the instrument that OKs a suit against a state nor that a DA's permission is needed.

    Looking forward to any cite that supports such an idea...information such as this would be very helpful to folks who would want to sue.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Augustin View Post
    The citizen in the video is an idiot.

    If he wanted to file a complaint against the cops he should have hired an attorney to represent him and he should have had his attorney file the complaint.

    In the comments section below the youtube video are many recommendations to sue the cops. Any lawsuit would have to be approved by the DA before being allowed to proceed, which would never happen.

    Notice that it took several months before the charges were dropped. The authorities are hoping that you violate one of the terms of your release during this period (which is usually much longer than just a few months) and once you do so you can be found guilty of that violation even if the original charge was bogus. This is how our criminal justice system works here in Amerika.
    In the comments section below the youtube video are many recommendations to sue the cops. Any lawsuit would have to be approved by the DA before being allowed to proceed, which would never happen.
    Wrong!

  7. #7
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    It seems like you are suggesting there is an venue outside of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with which to sue, which seems odd. Perhaps you would provide us with this information?
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 02-16-2014 at 11:01 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    It seems like you are suggesting there is an venue outside of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with which to sue, which seems odd. Perhaps you would provide us with this information?
    I presume you are referring to Augustin's post?

  9. #9
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Augustin View Post
    The citizen in the video is an idiot.

    If he wanted to file a complaint against the cops he should have hired an attorney to represent him and he should have had his attorney file the complaint.

    In the comments section below the youtube video are many recommendations to sue the cops. Any lawsuit would have to be approved by the DA before being allowed to proceed, which would never happen.

    Notice that it took several months before the charges were dropped. The authorities are hoping that you violate one of the terms of your release during this period (which is usually much longer than just a few months) and once you do so you can be found guilty of that violation even if the original charge was bogus. This is how our criminal justice system works here in Amerika.
    A person is not an idiot for filling a complaint with a police department without hiring a lawyer to act as their proxy or representative. There are idiots in the video, however; the police. The police, who are making false arrests and clearly have no idea what they're talking about... "File a complaint?!?! Against meeeee?????" "I'm going to arrest you for such and such" "... That's not illegal" "Oh yeah? Well then I'll arrest you for such and such other thing!" Well that's not illegal either, come to find out.

    To me, the guy seems like an average joe trying to exercise his ******* rights. If that makes him an idiot in your book, then you must have the majority of the member base here in that same book.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 02-16-2014 at 10:15 PM.
    Advocate freedom please

  10. #10
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    I presume you are referring to Augustin's post?
    I was. I wasn't aware there was a way to sue for deprivation of civil rights except by suing for deprivation of civil rights in a "Section 1983" lawsuit.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    Just for clarification, are you saying that a civil suit against the officer and/or his department must be approved by the District Attorney before it can proceed in civil court?

    That isn't my understanding of how it works.
    The system varies from state to state and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so a blanket statement (like I made) isn't very accurate or informative. And I'll be the first to say that I'm no expert and that I most certainly don't know about specific jurisdictions, other than that of where I live in Montana.

    Most states require victims to first go through all appropriate ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES before they can sue the police.

    Administrative remedies include (but are not necessarily limited to) the following: (1) reporting the incident to internal affairs division of the police department (what this gentleman was apparently trying to do), and/or (2) reporting the incident to the Department of Justice (DOJ) or a municipality's Attorney General.

    Once you have made a report, most states also require the DOJ, AG, or the internal affairs division to give you a written notice of your right to sue the police.

    Typically, if the incident is reported to the local DA pursuant to an administrative remedy rule, the DA will file the complaint in the "round file."

    I called the man an idiot because I believe that anytime one has physical/in person contact with the cops they are putting themselves at unnecessary risk.

    Most cities and local jurisdictions will provide you with a standard form for your complaint (called a tort claim). An attorney will surely already have a copy of this form or it may be available on-line, thus eliminating one's need to physically confront the cops or their administrative staff. I see no reason why you should go the cop shop to get the form. This case basically proves my contention.

    Unless you are extremely knowledgeable in administrative law (very unlikely for the average Joe) you most definitely need an attorney to help you. How your complaint is worded is a major factor in how the complaint will proceed. In addition to helping with the verbage of the complaint an experienced attorney will be able to explain the law, guide you through the legal process, and help protect your rights.

    Also, importantly, some states have "false charge" laws. False charge laws make it a misdemeanor to knowingly file a false police misconduct allegation or lawsuit against a police officer, a municipality, or a supervisor. If you file a false charge, you can be punished with jail time, fines, and/or community service.

    It is a common tactic for the cops to file a false charge as a way to get the complaint to go away.

    In summary, it is my belief that before you go and mess with the cops you'd better have your act together, right from the get-go. Rushing in a rash manner like this man did is rather ignorant, and potentially dangerous, in my opinion. Only with a good attorney will you have you act together.

    P.S., stealthyeliminator, I do agree with your comments about the cops but I refrained form commenting about their actions so I wouldn't be attacked YET AGAIN as being a cop basher.
    Last edited by Augustin; 02-17-2014 at 02:45 PM. Reason: fix text

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Augustin View Post
    The system varies from state to state and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so a blanket statement (like I made) isn't very accurate or informative. And I'll be the first to say that I'm no expert and that I most certainly don't know about specific jurisdictions, other than that of where I live in Montana.

    Most states require victims to first go through all appropriate ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES before they can sue the police.

    Administrative remedies include (but are not necessarily limited to) the following: (1) reporting the incident to internal affairs division of the police department (what this gentleman was apparently trying to do), and/or (2) reporting the incident to the Department of Justice (DOJ) or a municipality's Attorney General.

    Once you have made a report, most states also require the DOJ, AG, or the internal affairs division to give you a written notice of your right to sue the police.

    Typically, if the incident is reported to the local DA pursuant to an administrative remedy rule, the DA will file the complaint in the "round file."

    I called the man an idiot because I believe that anytime one has physical/in person contact with the cops they are putting themselves at unnecessary risk.

    Unless you are extremely knowledgeable in administrative law (very unlikely for the average Joe) you most definitely need an attorney to help you. How your complaint is worded is a major factor in how the complaint will proceed. In addition to helping with the verbage of the complaint an experienced attorney will be able to explain the law, guide you through the legal process, and help protect your rights.

    Also, importantly, some states have "false charge" laws. False charge laws make it a misdemeanor to knowingly file a false police misconduct allegation or lawsuit against a police officer, a municipality, or a supervisor. If you file a false charge, you can be punished with jail time, fines, and/or community service.

    It is a common tactic for the cops to file a false charge as a way to get the complaint to go away.

    In summary, it is my belief that before you go and mess with the cops you'd better have your act together, right from the get-go. Rushing in a rash manner like this man did is rather ignorant, and potentially dangerous, in my opinion. Only with a good attorney will you have you act together.

    P.S., stealthyeliminator, I do agree with your comments about the cops but I refrained form commenting about their actions so I wouldn't be attacked YET AGAIN as being a cop basher.
    Most states require victims to first go through all appropriate ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES before they can sue the police.
    My spidey sense tells me you are mistaken.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    My spidey sense tells me you are mistaken.
    Perhaps, Again, I'm not an expert. But this is how it works in my neck of the woods.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Augustin View Post
    Perhaps, Again, I'm not an expert. But this is how it works in my neck of the woods.
    In an effort to thwart further irrelevant opinions on the topic, I offer this for your consideration:

    FORUM RULES
    (5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    In an effort to thwart further irrelevant opinions on the topic, I offer this for your consideration:
    How is my opinions about why an attorney is best used to file a complaint off topic?

    As for the forum rule, perhaps you should cite the law yourself rather than posting a one word reply like "Wrong!." A single word reply is basically a dumb tweet, not an intelligent reply. I explained how the system works where I live. If you are so certain that I'm "wrong" please cite me what is right, or explain it using full sentences.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Augustin View Post
    How is my opinions about why an attorney is best used to file a complaint off topic?

    As for the forum rule, perhaps you should cite the law yourself rather than posting a one word reply like "Wrong!." A single word reply is basically a dumb tweet, not an intelligent reply. I explained how the system works where I live. If you are so certain that I'm "wrong" please cite me what is right, or explain it using full sentences.
    How is my opinions about why an attorney is best used to file a complaint off topic?
    I did not say off-topic, I said irrelevant opinion, and this statement was not what I was referring to.
    BTW, I actually almost agree with it. Never file a complaint until you receive the results from a public information (FOIA) request. Then get an attorney, if needed, and decide the best course of action.

    What is 'irrelevant opinion' is your statement that "Most states require..."

    I explained how the system works where I live.
    Hence my calling your attention to the forum rules.


    If you are so certain that I'm "wrong" please cite me what is right
    That's not how it works. You made the point, you need to back it up.


    , or explain it using full sentences
    I'm sorry, but I believe you are mistaken in that assertion. You would please provide us with a cite to authority that supports your claim (as required by Forum rules)? Thanks cupcake.

    There, you feel better now?
    Last edited by notalawyer; 02-17-2014 at 03:35 PM. Reason: fixed stupid formating error

  17. #17
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    My spidey sense tells me you are mistaken.
    Your sense and mine as well.
    I don't think I have to ask the defendant in a civil trial if I have their permission to sue them. At least the last time I filed a 1983 lawsuit I didn't.


    Most states require victims to first go through all appropriate ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES before they can sue the police.
    Name ten. As far as I know, if you're suing the state and/or it's agents in Federal Court, the state hasn't got jack to say about it other than, "what time is the deposition?"

    Were it otherwise, the state could say, "Yeah, the officer did wrong when he broke your arm, tazed your wife and impregnated your dog. He was sentenced to having no beers over the weekend and had to make a $1.00 contribution to the Policeman's Benevolent Association. We consider this matter closed, thank you citizen for your cooperation."
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 02-17-2014 at 04:15 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Augustin View Post
    P.S., stealthyeliminator, I do agree with your comments about the cops but I refrained form commenting about their actions so I wouldn't be attacked YET AGAIN as being a cop basher.
    You'd rather be called a LAC or patriot basher? Perhaps you didn't mean it in the way it came across, but I took issue with you calling the man an idiot... Perhaps it was not the best choice to turn around and physically return to the police department, but I don't think that calling him an idiot is an appropriate response... Not to mention the fact that whether it was ill-advised or not, he was still completely within his rights and was breaking no law what-so-ever. I don't think that it would have been predictable that he'd be arrested. The arrest was not just unlawful, but in my opinion egregiously so. This wasn't a case of, well, he "technically" wasn't breaking the law but was doing something similar to something that would have been breaking the law. The fact of the matter is that he didn't even come close to breaking the law. If I were in the truck with him, knowing the laws that I currently do, I would not have advised him against going back to file a complaint. I would have seen no big reason to try and persuade him not to. Only a completely ignorant sorry excuse for a law enforcement officer would have made that arrest...
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 02-17-2014 at 06:40 PM.
    Advocate freedom please

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Augustin View Post
    Perhaps, Again, I'm not an expert. But this is how it works in my neck of the woods.
    For violations of your constitutional rights, need for admin remedies are moot (they cannot rule on such matters).

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    You'd rather be called a LAC or patriot basher? Perhaps you didn't mean it in the way it came across, but I took issue with you calling the man an idiot... Perhaps it was not the best choice to turn around and physically return to the police department, but I don't think that calling him an idiot is an appropriate response... Not to mention the fact that whether it was ill-advised or not, he was still completely within his rights and was breaking no law what-so-ever. I don't think that it would have been predictable that he'd be arrested. The arrest was not just unlawful, but in my opinion egregiously so. This wasn't a case of, well, he "technically" wasn't breaking the law but was doing something similar to something that would have been breaking the law. The fact of the matter is that he didn't even come close to breaking the law. If I were in the truck with him, knowing the laws that I currently do, I would not have advised him against going back to file a complaint. I would have seen no big reason to try and persuade him not to. Only a completely ignorant sorry excuse for a law enforcement officer would have made that arrest...
    Sure, I could have chose my words differently but I still think that "idiot" describes the man's actions better than "ill-advised." Perhaps I should have used the word brainless, or irresponsible, or naïve, or shortsighted, or moronic, or out to lunch, or simpleminded, or unthinking, or the like. But I chose a word to describe my feelings about the man and I'll stick by it.

    Sure he was within his rights and not violating any laws, but when you call up the cops after a previous conflict/altercation with them and inform that that you are returning WITH a firearm, that is outright idiocy.

    What I'm saying is that it wasn't just his returning, but his returning with a gun, and especially his calling them up first and informing then that he was bringing a gun with him. I DO THINK IT WAS PREDICTABLE that things would go bad.

    He should have kept his mouth shut about the gun on the phone and when the cops asked him about it. He should have replied something like, "I only have lawful private property" when asked if he had a gun. Better yet he should have secured it at a location other than in his truck BEFORE he returned, and then truthfully said "no guns."

    Its very rare that I'll defend the cops, but consider how the call probably came down. The dispatcher probably said the man was returning with a gun. That rightfully put the cops on edge. THE COPS WERE PROBABLY DISPATCHED TO A DISGRUNTLED MAN WITH A GUN WANTING TO FILE A COMPLAINT. If that was the case (and of course I'm only speculating - but I've spent a considerable amount of time inside various dispatch centers for EMS/police - so I know firsthand how calls are dispatched) then the cops were justified in drawing down on the man - very predictable.

    VERY TRUE, however, that the bust was TOTALLY inappropriate.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    I did not say off-topic, I said irrelevant opinion, and this statement was not what I was referring to.
    BTW, I actually almost agree with it. Never file a complaint until you receive the results from a public information (FOIA) request. Then get an attorney, if needed, and decide the best course of action.

    What is 'irrelevant opinion' is your statement that "Most states require..."

    Hence my calling your attention to the forum rules.

    That's not how it works. You made the point, you need to back it up.

    I'm sorry, but I believe you are mistaken in that assertion. You would please provide us with a cite to authority that supports your claim (as required by Forum rules)? Thanks cupcake.

    There, you feel better now?
    Cite, cite, cite.... Sorry, but you are the one who is now wrong. I don't "NEED" to cite anything. It is not "REQUIRED BY FORUM RULES." The forum's rule is not an absolute must engraved in stone but rather it reads, "cite, as best you can,..."

    I can't give you a cite for Texas administrative law without a considerable amount of research (I'm from Montana and I only know how it works here), and most likely I'd have to hire a Texas attorney who handles administrative law. The country is on the verge of complete financial collapse, state of Martial Law that will follow, and WWIII. I really don't have the time or will to dick around with you by wasting my precious time researching the details of law.

    BTW, I asked you to explain to me and others how I'm wrong, yet you ignored it and instead demanded "That's not how it works. You made the point, you need to back it up." Well back at ya... You made the point that I'm wrong, perhaps you need to back up your statements as well. Otherwsie you are a one-sided hypocrite.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    Name ten. As far as I know, if you're suing the state and/or it's agents in Federal Court, the state hasn't got jack to say about it other than, "what time is the deposition?"

    Were it otherwise, the state could say, "Yeah, the officer did wrong when he broke your arm, tazed your wife and impregnated your dog. He was sentenced to having no beers over the weekend and had to make a $1.00 contribution to the Policeman's Benevolent Association. We consider this matter closed, thank you citizen for your cooperation."
    Right. If you are suing in Federal court it is the DOJ with the say as to whether or not the case will proceed. I did allude to that already.

    I can't name ten and its rather unfair of you to ask me to do so. I've already stated that I only know how it works where I live, so why the unreasonable request?

    That's almost right. Broke your skull open, raped your wife, and shot your dog dead is more like how it typically works in the real world of the new Amerikan police state, especially in Texas.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,163

    Montana Code Annotated, 65 hits on "administrative remedies," which one please?

    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  24. #24
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Augustin View Post
    Cite, cite, cite.... Sorry, but you are the one who is now wrong. I don't "NEED" to cite anything. It is not "REQUIRED BY FORUM RULES." The forum's rule is not an absolute must engraved in stone but rather it reads, "cite, as best you can,..."

    --snipped--

    BTW, I asked you to explain to me and others how I'm wrong, yet you ignored it and instead demanded "That's not how it works. You made the point, you need to back it up." Well back at ya... You made the point that I'm wrong, perhaps you need to back up your statements as well. Otherwsie you are a one-sided hypocrite.
    Forum Rule
    (5) CITE TO AUTHORITY:
    If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

    Forum rules are there for the edification of all, BUT the interpretation of them is not up to the individual poster/member/user. It has long been the originator (OP) of the contention that shall be responsible for providing the cite not those who may hold it in question. There are times when an opposing view is presented along with a cite - that may be good as it can settle confusion and/or misunderstandings. The problem with that as a requirement, would seem then that all wishing to post would thereby need to cite every nuance in rebuttal.

    BTW - we do not call people names here, nor insult them. Word to the wise.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    It seems like you are suggesting there is an venue outside of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with which to sue, which seems odd. Perhaps you would provide us with this information?
    Odd, I thought I responded (maybe did not hit "send") grrr.

    Anywho, yes, for causes of actions that are outside of 42usc1983 jurisdiction you can ask the state to allow itself to be sued in state or federal court outside of a 42usc1983 case.

    If its a civil violation outside of a pure constitutional violation this is one way to go.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •