McAllen Police Illegally Arrest Law Abiding Citizen

Augustin · Feb 18, 2014

notalawyer said:
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.

Augustin · Feb 18, 2014

Fallschirmjäger said:
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.

Grapeshot · Feb 18, 2014

Augustin said:
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.

davidmcbeth · Feb 18, 2014

Fallschirmjäger said:
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.

Fallschirjmäger · Feb 18, 2014

Augustin said:
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.

I ask because you said, "Most states" which would imply at least 26, I didn't ask for even half that. If you feel 10 is too arduous, then let's cut it in half, name five states.

Still too hard? Okay, you convinced me, let's halve it again, name three. Just three measly states where I'm required by law to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a civil lawsuit against a police department or officer.

Still too hard? Well then, cite the authority in your state (Montana, I believe?) which says I must seek administrative remedy before filing a civil lawsuit.

OC for ME · Feb 18, 2014

You can sue anyone for anything, it's the American way.

stealthyeliminator · Feb 18, 2014

Augustin said:
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.

Hi Augustin, The OP posts a video with audio recording and therefore any speculation on issues which are addressed with said audio recordings can only be accomplished if you have either (A) not watched said video or (B) not understood the contents. In all cases you are wrong to post your wild and inaccurate speculations. Your speculation is completely unnecessary as factual evidence is present - not that such wild speculation is ever useful, and probably even worse when less factual evidence is present. I would even say that it is very much possible that you are being intentionally deceitful as to give casual browsers false impressions about the video in the OP, as they may not dedicate the time that might be necessary to realize how full of **** you are. I suggest that you redact your very erroneous statements as they are clearly factually incorrect per the video which is posted in the OP. Finally, your contempt for the truth of the matter disgusts me.

stealthyeliminator · Feb 18, 2014

Augustin said:
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.

Then don't post about them.

"Sure he was within his rights and not violating any laws, but"
Well, isn't that an interesting way to start a statement.

"and inform that that you are returning WITH a firearm"
He told the lady on the phone that he was returning with a firearm, or he told the lady (who may or may not have previously known anything about the previous incident or that he had previously had a rifle with him) that per her instruction he would return to the station?

"and especially his calling them up first and informing then that he was bringing a gun with him"
He told the lady on the phone that he was returning with a firearm, or he told the lady (who may or may not have previously known anything about the previous incident or that he had previously had a rifle with him) that per her instruction he would return to the station?

"He should have kept his mouth shut about the gun on the phone"
He told the lady on the phone that he was returning with a firearm, or he told the lady (who may or may not have previously known anything about the previous incident or that he had previously had a rifle with him) that per her instruction he would return to the station?

"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."
That's a lot of probablys. So, you call people idiots based on probablys a lot? You sound like a gem of a person to know.

Please pay careful attention to the following statement, and feel free to verify by checking the video yourself. The officer clearly tells the arrestee, after handcuffing him, that the reason he is "doing this" is because the arrestee told him earlier during the previous encounter that he was in possession of a rifle, and then proceeds to ask if he still has it. He did not tell the lady on the phone that he was in possession of a rifle, or that he was returning with it. More likely than the police being dispatched to the police station, they were already there. It is their station, after all. More likely than them drawing down on him because he made some statement about "returning with a rifle," a statement which we have no evidence was ever made, they drew down on them because they are (1) unprofessional, (2) untrained, (3) paranoid and (4) disrespectful of citizens' rights.

Augustin · Feb 18, 2014

Nightmare said:
http://leghlngoogle.leg.mt.gov/search?q=administrative+remedies

I can't open your link on my computer. Please re-post.

Augustin · Feb 18, 2014

stealthyeliminator said:
That's a lot of probablys. So, you call people idiots based on probablys a lot? You sound like a gem of a person to know.

Please pay careful attention to the following statement, and feel free to verify by checking the video yourself. The officer clearly tells the arrestee, after handcuffing him, that the reason he is "doing this" is because the arrestee told him earlier during the previous encounter that he was in possession of a rifle, and then proceeds to ask if he still has it.

No. I think he is an idiot because he wouldn't have been arrested in the first place if he had hired an attorney to represent him and file the complaint. He put himself at unnecessary risk of being prosecuted and convicted, and also at risk of violating one of the terms of his release during the several months between his arrest and the DA dropping the charges.

As for the details of the video you so astutely pointed out...

The very first thing the cop says to the man is, quote, "You said you have a high power rifle with you?" And the man replied to the officer, "I SAID I GOT A RIFLE, YEAH." So by his own admission he had told somebody, whether it was the dispatcher or whomever, that he was armed.

And the cops showed up with their weapons drawn because, according to the officer, "You said you have a high power rifle with you?"

What did the guy expect? That after informing them that he had a rifle they would show up with open arms and give him a nice hug?

You claim that I'm "wrong to post (my) wild and inaccurate speculations" and say that "(my) speculation is completely unnecessary" and further that "such wild speculation is ever (SIC) useful."

My speculation isn't as wild as you think. I can accurately guess that the dispatcher told the responding officer such. During my almost 10 year tenure as a paramedic I spent literally many hundreds of hours hanging out in various dispatch centers and so I have extensive first hand knowledge as to how police calls are dispatched. Perhaps if the man does a FOIA request and gets the dispatch tapes we will be able to see what was said.

BTW, I'm guessing you are a personal friend of the man in question.

stealthyeliminator · Feb 18, 2014

Augustin said:
No. I think he is an idiot because he wouldn't have been arrested in the first place if he had hired an attorney to represent him and file the complaint. He put himself at unnecessary risk of being prosecuted and convicted, and also at risk of violating one of the terms of his release during the several months between his arrest and the DA dropping the charges.

As for the details of the video you so astutely pointed out...

The very first thing the cop says to the man is, quote, "You said you have a high power rifle with you?" And the man replied to the officer, "I SAID I GOT A RIFLE, YEAH." So by his own admission he had told somebody, whether it was the dispatcher or whomever, that he was armed.

And the cops showed up with their weapons drawn because, according to the officer, "You said you have a high power rifle with you?"

What did the guy expect? That after informing them that he had a rifle they would show up with open arms and give him a nice hug?

You claim that I'm "wrong to post (my) wild and inaccurate speculations" and say that "(my) speculation is completely unnecessary" and further that "such wild speculation is ever (SIC) useful."

My speculation isn't as wild as you think. I can accurately guess that the dispatcher told the responding officer such. During my almost 10 year tenure as a paramedic I spent literally many hundreds of hours hanging out in various dispatch centers and so I have extensive first hand knowledge as to how police calls are dispatched. Perhaps if the man does a FOIA request and gets the dispatch tapes we will be able to see what was said.

BTW, I'm guessing you are a personal friend of the man in question.

More of the same. I'm not going to get into a "let's see who can repeat their position more times in a row" game with you. You have contributed nothing more to the conversation. Anyone that watches and understands the video can see that you are factually incorrect in most of your assertions.

Your sic is unnecessary, my sentence is proper.

Why the flying **** are you on an open carry forum if you believe that the knowledge that a LAC is armed justifies the police in drawing the firearms and threatening the LAC with them?

Augustin · Feb 18, 2014

Fallschirmjäger said:
I ask because you said, "Most states" which would imply at least 26, I didn't ask for even half that. If you feel 10 is too arduous, then let's cut it in half, name five states.

Still too hard? Okay, you convinced me, let's halve it again, name three. Just three measly states where I'm required by law to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a civil lawsuit against a police department or officer.

Still too hard? Well then, cite the authority in your state (Montana, I believe?) which says I must seek administrative remedy before filing a civil lawsuit.

Fallschirmjäger,

Kenneth Royce is a well-respected author who writes under the pen-name of Boston T. Party. He has written many very well-know non-fiction books about police encounters, privacy, tax resistance and gun politics. Further, he is one of the founders of the Free State Wyoming project. Boston has been the key note speaker at numerous Libertarian conferences nationwide. As such he is a highly credentialed writer whose opinions and information should be respected by all on this forum.

His book, "You and the Police" has been recommended on this forum several times. It deals with how to manage encounters with police and other law enforcement personnel. Boston claims to have developed the techniques presented in the book through repeated experiences with law enforcement. Specifically treated is how to deal with law enforcement encounters when there are firearms involved.

Notably, the book is endorsed by attorney Nancy Lord, JD, MD. Also, Larry Pratt of GOA has publically endorsed Boston's works numerous times. Boston is a personal friend of mine and I've spent much time with him both on and off the shooting range. Accordingly, I know a lot about the man that is not publically known. I fully respect his expertise.

On page 2/6 of You and the Police we can read the following:

"Lawsuits. Many arrested suspects swear to sue, but few actually do. Even if a damaged party is serious about suing, it requires the DA to go along, and even if that happens, the case can take years to reach trial."

I realize that may not the cite you are looking for, but it certainly does back up my position with some heavy credentials.

Augustin · Feb 18, 2014

stealthyeliminator said:
Why the flying **** are you on an open carry forum if you believe that the knowledge that a LAC is armed justifies the police in drawing the firearms and threatening the LAC with them?

I never said the cops were justified, just that their response was very predictable.

Something you may or may not understand about modern emergency dispatch centers is the level of sophistication currently in use in most major cities. Called "computer-aided dispatch systems," their computer's web-based software allows the dispatchers to rapidly access an incredible amount of critical information about the caller, such as the GPS location of the call (geospatial data), the caller's name and address, digital photo, details about all previous interactions with the police, the caller's rap sheet, etc.

The dispatcher's job is to obtain certain information from the caller to determine what the problem is and who should be sent. The dispatcher will want to know the following:

•Where is the problem occurring?
•What is happening?
•Is it happening now?
•Is anyone injured?
•Is the caller involved?
•Who is involved and what do they look like?
•Are there any weapons involved?
•Has anyone been drinking?
•If vehicles are involved, what do the look like?
•If the call is of a burglary or theft, what was taken?

Perhaps most important of these key pieces of information is the issue of firearms or other weapons. This is a high priority piece of information that the dispatcher will try to get, primarily for officer safety. IT IS NOT WILD SPECULATION ON MY PART THAT THE DISPATCHER ADVISED THE RESPONDING POLICE THAT THE CALLER LIKELY HAD A GUN. Quite the contrary. If the dispatcher didn't obtain that info and relay it to the field units, they would have been negligent in their duties as an emergency operator.

You can read all about CAD systems here:

http://it.ojp.gov/documents/LEITSC_Law_Enforcement_CAD_Systems.pdf

Or alternately you can see these systems in use in the Academy Award winning movie "The Call" which starred Halle Berry. Even though the film is a fictional Hollywood production, it very accurately depicts the level of sophistication that police dispatch centers use.

In the movie, an emergency dispatcher receives a desperate call from a kidnapped teen. Unfortunately, the teen is calling from a disposable phone with no GPS chip, making it impossible for the operator to trace the call. But eventually they are able to identify who the kidnapper and it is amazing how much information they immediately have about the kidnapper as soon as they have his name. This isn't wolf-wolf science fiction. We live in a very technological world.

How this relates to the video of the OCer is that as soon as he made the call, much information about him was immediately available to the dispatcher (if his phone number was already in the system). Otherwise, as soon as the man gave the dispatcher his name, one of the dispatchers entered his name into the computer, thus accessing his extensive personal information.

Because the man had previous interactions with the cops regarding firearms (apparently he is a know open carry activist) all that information was available to the dispatches, WHO UNDOUBETEDLY ADVISED THE RESPONDING COPS ABOUT THE MAN'S LIKELY POSSESSION OF A FIREARM. And his digital photo was likely instantly transmitted to all law enforcement vehicles.

He didn't have to tell the dispatcher that he was a gun owner/advocate. The information was available to the operator as soon as he gave him/her his name, if not sooner.

Fallschirjmäger · Feb 18, 2014

Augustin said:
On page 2/6 of You and the Police we can read the following:

"Lawsuits. Many arrested suspects swear to sue, but few actually do. Even if a damaged party is serious about suing, it requires the DA to go along, and even if that happens, the case can take years to reach trial."

Click to expand...

I realize that may not the cite you are looking for, but it certainly does back up my position with some heavy credentials.

Not having the publication in front of me and not knowing the context all I can say is somebody doesn't know a whole lot about the civil justice system. District Attorneys, County Solicitors, etc work for the county and do criminal prosecution cases. They do not handle and do not prosecute civil cases.
Civil cases are handled by civilian attorneys in civil courts. One does not need the permission of the county prosecutor to file a civil suit.

Perhaps you have mistaken civil and criminal trials?

Still unable to find t̶e̶n̶,̶ ̶f̶i̶v̶e̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶r̶e̶e̶, your state's requirement to exhaust administrative measures before a civil suit can be filed?

Augustin · Feb 19, 2014

OC for ME said:
You can sue anyone for anything, it's the American way.

Easy as that, huh?

The truth is that bringing a successful civil suit, especially against the police, is very difficult, expensive, and time consuming. I've personally brought two separate lawsuits against different construction contractors. The first cost me about $30,000 in attorney fees, and the other over $50,000 in attorney fees. In both cases I had to put down $10K as an initial retainer.

It can be difficult to have the case heard by a jury (of six). Typically your attorney will want you to agree to have the case heard by a judge. My attorneys both told me right upfront that a judge will usually come up with a ruling that makes both parties equally unhappy.

The game that is often played is to outspend the other party in hopes that it becomes too expensive for the other to continue to proceed. This is done by filing motion after motion, all of which the other party has to pay his/her attorney to respond to. Expert witness reports and counter-reports, depositions, court-ordered mediation, etc. all run the bills of both parties up. It will take at least 1 1/2 years before the case ever sees the inside of a courtroom. In the meantime things will get really expensive. A civil suit will probably run between $15,000 to well over $100,000 if both sides are a corporation.

The court system and the judges hate civil cases and accordingly the system is set up to discourage civil cases in the first place. The judge is usually grossly overworked with their normal daily docket, and the last thing they want is a lengthy civil suit to contend with. The judge will order mediation to resolve the matter without going to court. If that fails he/she will possibly order more mediation. If that fails he/she may simply enter a summary judgment. It is ugly as it gets. Suing the cops is even more egregious, and blatantly stacked against the defendant. The cops attorney will have unlimited funds to file motion after motion for you to respond to.

Also, some attorneys will refuse to take cases against the cops on a contingency basis.

There are a lot of misconceptions about police misconduct and detainee abuse out there. One of the biggest myths perpetuated out there is that it’s easy to find a lawyer who will file a civil rights lawsuit for you when you claim you were abused in or out of custody and that all these cases result in huge multimillion dollar payouts. Sure, we've all heard about the big payouts in places like California but the fact is that, in most states that’s just not the case, in fact, in many places that’s just plain impossible.

First, there are a lot of factors that affect how likely it is that you will find someone who will take your case when your rights have been violated, the biggest one is whether or not you have money to pay a lawyer upfront to take your case.

A civil rights suit is a lengthy battle that requires a lot of research and investigation and you pay your lawyer, as well as all the investigators and experts he or she hires, on an hourly basis along with any costs they incur in traveling… so, when we talk about paying a lawyer upfront, were easily talking five to perhaps six figures.

Now, most victims of mistreatment in custody don’t have that kind of money, when that’s the case you have to hire a lawyer on a contingency basis which means they only get money if they win. When this is the case, lawyers are very picky about what contingency cases they’ll take on and they have to take several things into consideration.

1. Whether your case has a very good chance of winning.

Civil rights lawsuits are filed in only 6% of alleged cases.

2. How much of an award would be involved.

Given the amount of time a lawyer must spend on a case, it has to be sufficient enough to be worth his or her time.

3. Whether or not you would be willing to settle.

Lawyers like settlements since they take less time than going to court and challenging the multitude of appeals and delays that the police lawyers always file, so they often work their contracts to take less of a cut for settlements to encourage you to accept them.

4. Their own risks of liability in taking on a case.

Police unions love to file a type of counter-suit called a SLAPP (Spurious Lawsuit Against Public Participation) which is a civil suit for slander/libel against the person claiming abuse and their legal representation.

The case may not have merit, but that doesn’t matter, it costs time and money to defend against them, which reduces the amount a lawyer can take away from the case and discourages them from accepting cases, which is what they are designed to do.

Hopefully, you’re starting to get the picture as to how hard it can be in some places to find lawyers who take police misconduct cases and, believe it or not, why some lawyers are getting away from civil rights practices because it’s just not lucrative enough to make a living.

Other reasons why attorneys won't take contingency cases against the cops include:

1. Public attitudes are very favorable towards the police, so favorable that the success rate for criminal and civil cases against the police are in the single digits.

So, the odds of winning are very low, even with a good solid case.

2. Some states have very low awards because of tort-reform legislation which does not allow pain and suffering awards as well as punitive damages.

This means there isn’t much profit for lawyers to work on a case for years just to get a small cut from the win.

Generally they get 40-60% of the win on contingency.

3. Because winnings are so limited, so are settlement offers.

Governments and the lawyers who represent them know what you can win is very limited, so when they do settle it’s often a very low amount.

4. There was a really nasty suit that happened in Seattle, WA. A lawyer, who was shot by an off-duty cop, sued the cop and the cop has filed counter suit, paid for by the city, against not only that lawyer, but also the witnesses of the shooting claiming both defamation and that they injured him. Why? Because the witnesses can’t afford their own lawyers and are being told that if they change their stories to favor the cop that they’ll be dropped from the suit.

Now, some people may be asking, what about the ACLU? Well, the ACLU only takes cases very selectively and their considerations hinge more on whether the case is a unique enough type of complaint that could lead to a precedent or whether the case would lead to a lot of headlines for a civil rights issue other than police brutality on its own.

Why am I explaining all of this?

Because the cops fully understand all of this and thus they know that they have very little accountability for police misconduct.

The moral of my information is that - unlike the man in Texas - you need to use your head in dealing with the cops.

Augustin · Feb 19, 2014

Fallschirmjäger said:
Not having the publication in front of me and not knowing the context all I can say is somebody doesn't know a whole lot about the civil justice system. District Attorneys, County Solicitors, etc work for the county and do criminal prosecution cases. They do not handle and do not prosecute civil cases. Civil cases are handled by civilian attorneys in civil courts. One does not need the permission of the county prosecutor to file a civil suit. Perhaps you have mistaken civil and criminal trials?

So you won't accept the published writings of the esteemed author I quoted because you don't have the publication in front of you? How odd.

I spent some time today studying the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, but so far I can't find you a cite. There is literally many hundreds of pages for me to review; it is not practical for me to continue. I'm not admitting defeat, but instead (for now) I'll stand on the words of Kenneth Royce. Nancy Lord, JD, MD and Larry Pratt wouldn't endorse Royce's writings if he wasn't qualified. Perhaps tomorrow I'll find more time, but frankly the thread has degenerated into arguing minutiae. I still think the man in the video was stupid for confronting the cops as he did, getting himself needlessly arrested. And I explained above - in great detail - why it is nearly impossible to sue the police. Getting the DA to go along with the case being heard is just one small, but real hurdle.

Grapeshot · Feb 19, 2014

Augustin said:
--snipped-- Getting the DA to go along with the case being heard is just one small, but real hurdle.

The DA has nothing to do with the prosecution of a civil case - nada.

**********************************

This thread is going exceptionally off topic from the OP. Trust that it can return w/o further cautioning.

OC for ME · Feb 19, 2014

Augustin said:
Easy as that, huh?

<snip>

Yes, it is that easy. The critical factor is what state laws are on the books in your state that can "encourage" a LEA to think long and hard about what the cost vs. benefit of having to endure a civil suit, or having to endure one of their cops having criminal charges filed against them and also against that cop's department. In Missouri there are laws that can be filed against a cop who makes a false report, even a traffic ticket.

False reports. 575.080. 1. A person commits the crime of making a false report if he knowingly:...

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5750000080.HTM

Tampering with physical evidence. 575.100. 1. A person commits the crime of tampering with physical evidence if he:...

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5750000100.HTM

Tampering with a public record. 575.110. 1. A person commits the crime of tampering with a public record if with the purpose to impair the verity, legibility or availability of a public record:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5750000110.HTM

The above is just the first of several, here in Missouri, than can be used to grease the skids for a civil suit. The rub is getting a prosecutor to proceed with a prosecution. However, there is no exception for a cop in this statute. Folks always look to a civil proceeding, I always look to a criminal proceeding in conjunction with a civil proceeding. The recording of a cop's conduct is vital.

Also, and not to drag the topic farther OT than it already is, the below is provided in regard to those "voluntary" stops the cops made in the STL area for DNA sample requests.

Signal or direction of sheriff or deputy sheriff, duty to stop, motor vehicle operators and riders of animals--violation, penalty.

575.145. It shall be the duty of the operator or driver of any vehicle or the rider of any animal traveling on the highways of this state to stop on signal of any sheriff or deputy sheriff and to obey...

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5750000145.HTM

The top cop who said the stop was "voluntary" knows this law I'm quite sure. Every citizen stopped was arrested under Missouri law and any attempt to not stop would expose that citizen to prosecution.

It is very important to not mix private civil suits with suing a public sector employee for violating the law while acting under the authority of the state. Your state may be different.

Fallschirjmäger · Feb 19, 2014

Augustin said:
So you won't accept the published writings of the esteemed author I quoted because you don't have the publication in front of you? How odd.

I spent some time today studying the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, but so far I can't find you a cite. There is literally many hundreds of pages for me to review; it is not practical for me to continue. I'm not admitting defeat, but instead (for now) I'll stand on the words of Kenneth Royce. Nancy Lord, JD, MD and Larry Pratt wouldn't endorse Royce's writings if he wasn't qualified. Perhaps tomorrow I'll find more time, but frankly the thread has degenerated into arguing minutiae. I still think the man in the video was stupid for confronting the cops as he did, getting himself needlessly arrested. And I explained above - in great detail - why it is nearly impossible to sue the police. Getting the DA to go along with the case being heard is just one small, but real hurdle.

You misunderstand, my good sir. It isn't that I don't accept the opinions of the author, but rather that I believe you must be taking them out of context as that opinion can only apply in a criminal trial (where a District Attorney would be employed) and not a civil suit where the prosecution is in the hands of the plaintiff's lawyer of choice.

Do you have a better understanding of the two systems now?

stealthyeliminator · Feb 19, 2014

Augustin said:
[...]

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.

Augustin said:
I never said the cops were justified, [...]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Where are you getting that the police were dispatched to a call at all? If we have no reason to believe that a dispatch was actually made, all of your speculation as to the details of how that dispatch might be made are even more irrelevant.

McAllen Police Illegally Arrest Law Abiding Citizen

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Banned

Active member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Active member

Regular Member