tvc184

It appeared that you gave two different answers. I think I figured it out though. Officers are the state (prosecution) as police are government officials. So if you agree with the state you are saying that it is a lawful entry by the police and the conviction stands. But…. After reading it literally about five times I think I understand. Our terminology is different. The “state” is the prosecution. The “state” used the officer’s actions to convict a man of a felony. The “state supreme court” is not the state in this discussion. They sit in neutral judgment of the state’s actions. I have to remember that most people don’t use legal terminology. It is not uncommon for a “state supreme court” to overrule the “state”. So….. I am assuming that you are saying that the state supreme court in this case was correct and that the officer’s actions were unlawful. Case dismissed.

You can’t enter ever on reasonable suspicion.

I probably need to add this. Hopefully this can clear up situations….. hopefully. There are federal laws and state laws. They may be similar but one doesn’t depend on the other. The US Constitution is laid out that the states are basically a country within a country. Like the country/state of Texas has the right to make its own laws. They can make virtually any law that they wish as long as it doesn’t violate the US Constitution or Texas Constitution. So there are state courts and federal court systems. If the DEA files a drug case with the US Attorney (USA or the district attorney for federal cases), the USA can’t file the case in state court. Likewise for a violation of state law cannot be filed in federal court. The systems do not cross over. As an example a guy in Beaumont is convicted of a crime under Texas state law like theft. He disagrees with the trial judge’s ruling on a piece of evidence and wants to appeal. Beaumont is in the 9th Appeals District which is Montgomery, San Jacinto, Polk, Tyler, Jasper, Newton, Orange, Jefferson, Liberty and Hardin counties. So any appeals from those districts are appealed to the 9th District Court of Appeals in Beaumont. A loss by either party (state or person) can appeal to the supreme courts in Texas (Texas has two supreme courts). So in the Texas system you have: 1. Trial Court 2. District Appeals Court 3. Supreme Court (Texas has two as mentioned. The Texas Supreme Court is for civil cases like lawsuits and the Court of Criminal Appeals for crimes) So the guy convicted of theft in Beaumont has appealed his case all the way to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and he loses. The conviction is final!!! Well…. Maybe not. If the appeal is due to a US Constitution violation or law, the appeal can then be filed in the federal system which ultimately ends with the US Supreme Court. The federal system is almost identical to the 3 tier state system so you have: 1. Trial Court (federal District Court) 2. Circuit Courts (equivalent of Texas Appeals Court)(Texas is in the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans who has federal appeals jurisdiction in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi only). 3. US Supreme Court So….. A guy in Lumberton is convicted of a crime from a traffic stop. He appeals to the Court of Appeals in Beaumont and then all the way to the top in Texas and still loses. Since a traffic stop involves the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution however, he has a valid reason (nexus) to appeal to the federal system. The guy can appeal to the federal system by claiming his constitutional right was violated such as the Fourth Amendment and claiming an unlawful seizure on the traffic stop. The guy then starts over in the federal system by saying that the Texas courts made a mistake. All appeals are not accepted so it isn’t like the Texas or US Supreme Court hears each of the millions of cases a year. The judges in the appeals courts can simply refuse to even hearing a case. I am guessing that probably 99+% of cases are rejected. They can read the trial judge’s opinion and agree. Case closed. Clear as mud? An overwhelming majority of cases never get anywhere near a supreme court.

You have the chance of your first crack at it…..

Police are running an undercover (UC) drug operation sometimes called a buy/bust. A UC officer or informant buys drugs and the person who sold the drugs is arrested almost immediately. So the police are running such an operation. A UC buys cocaine from the drug dealer and gives the signal that a successful deal was made. The UC purchased the drug with identified money. The police attempt to arrest the dealer but he runs on foot. After a short chase the dealer runs into a dead end apartment entry area with an apartment door on either side. The officer only a few steps away hears a door slam and as he turns the corner, the dealer is gone. One apartment is completely silent. The one across the hallway has some bumping sounds and the officer claims to be able to smell marijuana. Without seeing the suspect and without obtaining a warrant, the officer kicks in the door of the wrong apartment and finds several people with multiple drugs. Several arrests are made. People were convicted but the state supreme court threw out the conviction as an unlawful entry. It was appealed to the federal system under the Fourth Amendment of unlawful searches and seizures. Lawful or unlawful entry?

And like the other trivia, attempt without google… It might be interesting on opinions…

Maybe interesting, maybe not.

But maybe that shouldn’t be trivial….

Need to have a law trivia thread….

And great discussion in my opinion.

There are very few shades of gray. The article goes into great length about service to country, work ethics, mechanical ability, disability, etc. While that may be an interesting story in itself, it has no bearing on the case. That is media driven fluff. Past history? If the moment deadly force was used and it was deemed lawful (later determined by a grand jury) the past history doesn’t matter. I believe the article said that Whitehead chest bumped Arnold. That isn’t “only words”. The legal standard for a conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Under Texas law, if self defense is submitted to a jury, the jury must find that beyond a reasonable doubt…. there was no case of self defense. Maybe? Possibly? Could have been? I am pretty sure?….. are all reasonable doubt. Like the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no one was attacking him… when there is videos of people attacking him. In my opinion a lot of times gray area means I didn’t like the outcome.

I get it… but they don’t get to many the final call. 🙃

Never more than 3…. When I was on patrol I carried 6 weapons… not all firearms (2).

When it gets to the Supreme Court those judges almost always side with the police when it is officer safety involved.

Arnold acted stupidly. Stupid is not illegal. The only policy violation that I remember is an unauthorized weapon. The weapon was outside of policy because he didn’t declare it. I could have very easily carried maybe as many as 20 different handguns off-duty over the years. We had two requirements in our policy. One was that the handgun had to be declared as to brand, model and serial number and the second was that the officer had to qualify with that weapon. I believe the first part of the policy was that any gun we were in possession of was registered with the police department. This might be so that we couldn’t dispose of or toss a gun into the scene (known as a throw down). So by policy, any handgun possessed by an officer in the public on or off duty, had to be declared. The second part about qualifying was in case of a lawsuit to show that the police department had inspected the weapon and the officer showed proficiency in using it. If I understand correctly, I believe that part of the policy has changed. Now the gun to be declared however, there is no requirement to qualify with it. So they had him on a technicality but I have carried the same model… after declaring and qualifying. Most of the witness statements said that Whitehead lunged for the gun or they couldn’t tell from their vantage point. At least one might have said something like that guy tried to head butt the officer and grab his gun. That is not words. The arbitrator overturned the termination before Arnold was not given due process under the law and policy. The city settled out of court with Arnold with what I understand was a hefty settlement. The family virtually always sues and always reaches a settlement. That is because it is sometimes way cheaper to lose than to “win”. It might end up with $500,000 in legal fees over the years of fighting it to prove the officer acted lawfully but a city or company can jingle $150,000 in the plaintiff’s face and say, let’s settle this. That infers nothing about the officer’s action but rather the concept of deep pockets. Time would not have changed the outcome. It would probably be the same result today. Very few people are murdered by the police… like almost non-existent. Out of millions of citizen/police contacts per week and several millions of arrests per year, the odds of a murder is astronomically low. Deaths? Yes, people keep resisting. Under out current climate it seems they are encouraged to do so.

1. Can you note how many redhatters post such articles every day? 2. People are entitled to believe whichever version they want. I am sure that some bluepills believe that MSNBC and CNN are absolute gospel and Fox News is all lies. Is there a difference?

I have mentioned this before but bullets13 has been on patrol with me a few times. In one case we had a disturbance involving a large party at night playing music. The group was given a warning to quiet down so people could sleep or not be bothered in their homes. But…. they weren’t having any of it. They cranked it back up soon after the police left and not even in the back yard. It was in the front yard near the street. So the police got called again. The police were not required to give a warning the first time. They could have walked up, put handcuffs on the responsible person (usually the owner) and brought him to the County Jail. The same is true in the second call. But… the officers responding said that they would write the owner a citation and he would have two weeks to determine if he wanted a jury trial, simply pay the fine or whatever. The crowd of about 10-15 people didn’t like that option, remembering that only the owner was going to get a citation. The officers, including me, practically begged the guy to just sign the citation, turn off the loud music and we would leave. Nope. They determined that it was better to run and then fight. Even after we got a couple of people in custody and thought it was over, another person stepped up and wanted some more. Again given a warning, back away, get out of the road and let it go. Nope. He wanted to tell the officers no, kind of advanced toward the officers and wouldn’t back away. So… to the ground he went with more serious criminal charges that a citation. The owner not only was arrested for the disturbance but also Evading Detention and Resisting Arrest. He went from being to sign a citation for a fine only ($500 max) and with the right to fight it in court to two charges that could carry up to a year in jail and or up to a $4,000 fine. As I got back in my patrol unit bullets13 said something like, I saw the whole thing and y’all did everything you could to diffuse the situation. The people cause that, not the police. This is played out over and over again many times every day in this country. In this case the police could have lawfully made an arrest on the first call for service. Even on return the officer tried to handle it with paperwork. They people chose other than a peaceful option, not the police. This involved a racial minority and the only point of that is that even with this on video, some people would still make it an issue of race and claim that the police were wrong.

Yep. But… but… but… Facebook and YouTube says I don’t have to!! Uhhhhh…. Yes, you do. On maybe a funny note, being involved in perhaps 2,500 arrests, I have only read or heard the Miranda warning a handful of times. There usually is no point in doing so. On at least one occasion that I can remember (although probably others) I arrested a guy who said something like, “I have charges on you!! You didn’t read me my rights!”. Nope and I am not going to!!! File your charges. Alas, I didn’t go to jail. Rights are only required if 1. A person is in custody AND 2. the person is being interrogated. I rarely asked questions from a person arrested. If he wants to sit back and run his mouth on camera while not answering any questions, let him. I love it when without being asked, they tell about the crime and the scene. But if an officer doesn’t read Miranda… you don’t get to file criminal charges. 🤣

Oh yeah, if you are talking about an off duty officer in Orange (not to re-litigate that case), I read the something like 20+ witness statements and a majority (all but a couple) say that it was more than words. Also, as the topic of this thread about complying, the officer in Orange was cleared most likely due to those witness statements. Just like the false claims (completely bogus) of Michael Brown and “hands up, don’t shoot”… complying in 99.999% (probably more) of cases will keep a person alive.

Which goes to the OP. Do what you are told. In this video the officer was polite and professional for quite a while. The guy should have simply complied. He refused and then resisted arrest. The Facebook, YouTube, Google lawyers get people killed. That is why I posted Supreme Court cases. When the Supreme Court looks at a man having a diabetic crisis and the cops kind of kick the crap out of him (and I think broke his foot) and unanimously say… oh well, he should have complied!….. people should heed that warning.

On the use of force, according to SCOTUS it doesn’t matter what the totality of circumstances are when determining if an officer was justified in any use of force situation. In other words it doesn’t matter what actually happened but it matters what a reasonable officer would believe at that moment. It is the term “objective reasonableness”. An officer has to make a split second decision and what a situation reasonably appeared to be matters. If it later turned out to be incorrect, the officer will still likely be cleared. In the main case (Graham)the police kind of roughed up a guy who turned out to be completely innocent and in fact was having a medical crisis. The SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that what was later (like a few moments later) discovered didn’t matter, only what a reasonable officer would believe.

I guess that for most people this will not be an issue, but… SCOTUS has ruled that it doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures for a police officer to order the driver from a vehicle with no cause whatsoever. That is for the driver who is likely being detained for a crime, usually minor crime like a traffic citation. The passenger though probably has not been detained for a crime and is sort of a victim of circumstances due to being in a vehicle where the driver was stopped. In such a case SCOTUS has ruled that the passenger(s) can be ordered from the vehicle with no justification required. That’s right folks. The SCOTUS has said that anyone in the vehicle can be ordered from the vehicle with no jurisdiction required and it not violate the Fourth Amendment. A state can be more restricted and give additional rights but I can not seen any Texas Court of Criminal Appeals case that restricts an officer from ordering any person from a vehicle.

The ignorance of the crap put out on the internet….. Some more of the sovereign man nonsense. There is a claim of multiple court ruling that say a driver’s license is not needed unless driving a commercial vehicle, the police can’t force me out of my car and blah blah….. Youtube and Facebook lawyers….

I know that covid is real. I believe it was from a lab in China. Intentionally released? I don’t know. I used to think that the vaccine had issues (and still do) but it was pushed by many people (not the creators like Pfizer) as a necessity for a very problematic disease. Now I think it’s nothing but a continuing money scheme. I have heard a few radio commercials going back to late January. They have said, if you have not had a booster since September, you aren’t covered and need the update. Okay, so now (going back to January) if you haven’t had a booster in the last 4-5 months….. you really need to come on it!!! What next, every 12 weeks? So maybe Fauci had his grubby hands in it from the beginning, maybe it was a complete accident or whatever. However it started, it has become a created windfall for a lot of people to become rich and they are pushing the vaccines like cigarette commercials before they were made illegal. I also think that many in the health community are unwitting and unwilling pawns in the scheme. The covid vaccine du jour has become a huge industry.

Sure, just as soon as anyone produces any evidence. I wish they would at least turn the names over to a federal law enforcement agency that could be trusted but I am not sure that exists at the moment. Prosecute every single person no matter who it is. But for now….. Just as soon as anyone produces any evidence.