This is what Happens when you study law via Facebook

[thetragichippy]

I have literally told my Son a 1000 times to obey cops, no sudden moves, and fight your battles in a courtroom......you always lose on the street......even if you are right

This kid was speaking talking point lies that are repeated on social media......

Clean cut white dude too.......

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[WOSdrummer99]

2 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

I have literally told my Son a 1000 times to obey cops, no sudden moves, and fight your battles in a courtroom......you always lose on the street......even if you are right

Great advice. People in suits and robes are usually more sensible those in a vest with military gear.

[tvc184]

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….

[tvc184]

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. 

[tvc184]

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. 

[LumRaiderFan]

15 hours ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

Great advice. People in suits and robes are usually more sensible those in a vest with military gear.

Don’t agree with this at all, some folks in robes are extremely radical and some folks in military gear are our best and brightest.

[WOSdrummer99]

9 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Don’t agree with this at all, some folks in robes are extremely radical and some folks in military gear are our best and brightest.

This is also true. "Some" and "usually" are hard to argue against. But as the original post stated, better to fight in the court room with paper and pen than against the guy with a rifle around his body.

I've not seen a defendant approach the bench and be gunned down in front of a jury. I have seen off duty officer shoot a man dead in the chest at point blank range for words. Words, not actions.

I still believe the majority of officers have the best intentions. Some just have a bad day, or attitude, or any number of other things that could affect the spilt-second decision to end a life with one squeeze of the trigger.

Once again, a judge with a grudge has never been charged with murder because of actions inside their courtroom. I could be wrong, but it's more common on the streets.

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

This is also true. "Some" and "usually" are hard to argue against. But as the original post stated, better to fight in the court room with paper and pen than against the guy with a rifle around his body.

I've not seen a defendant approach the bench and be gunned down in front of a jury. I have seen off duty officer shoot a man dead in the chest at point blank range for words. Words, not actions.

I still believe the majority of officers have the best intentions. Some just have a bad day, or attitude, or any number of other things that could affect the spilt-second decision to end a life with one squeeze of the trigger.

Once again, a judge with a grudge has never been charged with murder because of actions inside their courtroom. I could be wrong, but it's more common on the streets.

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.

 

 

[tvc184]

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. 

[baddog]

This guy is one of those know-it-alls who could have avoided all of this with a simple compliance and a citation, which may have even gone as a warning and to get his registration up to date. I wish all of the cops who have ever pulled me over would have been as polite as this guy. 

[bullets13]

Stupidity at it's finest, and his family is feeding into it, claiming the police "murdered" him.  He was a moron, and brought upon himself completely reasonable and justifiable force.  

[tvc184]

42 minutes ago, baddog said:

This guy is one of those know-it-alls who could have avoided all of this with a simple compliance and a citation, which may have even gone as a warning and to get his registration up to date. I wish all of the cops who have ever pulled me over would have been as polite as this guy. 

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. 🤣

[tvc184]

4 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Stupidity at it's finest, and his family is feeding into it, claiming the police "murdered" him.  He was a moron, and brought upon himself completely reasonable and justifiable force.  

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. 

[WOSdrummer99]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

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. 

I also read the entire investigation and court proceedings. I respect your opinion on this.

My opinion is that mistakes were made. Department policies were not followed by Arnold. He was later terminated after being reinstated. Whitehead's family settled out of court. So something was wrong. Murders of other people across the nation by LEO have changed many things. If this happened today, perhaps a different outcome.

Better to take the chance with a racist judge than the one with gun pointed at your chest.

"You just shot me.”

Arnold’s reply—“I damn sure did shoot you”

[LumRaiderFan]

4 hours ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

This is also true. "Some" and "usually" are hard to argue against. But as the original post stated, better to fight in the court room with paper and pen than against the guy with a rifle around his body.

I've not seen a defendant approach the bench and be gunned down in front of a jury. I have seen off duty officer shoot a man dead in the chest at point blank range for words. Words, not actions.

I still believe the majority of officers have the best intentions. Some just have a bad day, or attitude, or any number of other things that could affect the spilt-second decision to end a life with one squeeze of the trigger.

Once again, a judge with a grudge has never been charged with murder because of actions inside their courtroom. I could be wrong, but it's more common on the streets.

I agree, I was simply pointing out the someone is a robe is no more sensible than law enforcement many times.

I also agree with everyone else, just do what the police tell you, this was such a senseless and avoidable tragedy.

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, bullets13 said:

Stupidity at it's finest, and his family is feeding into it, claiming the police "murdered" him.  He was a moron, and brought upon himself completely reasonable and justifiable force.  

Agree, and what’s even sadder is his dumb decision will affect these cops for the rest of their life.

[thetragichippy]

13 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

"You just shot me.”

Arnold’s reply—“I damn sure did shoot you”

It only took a few months of concealed carry to notice myself going to places or stoping at places I normally wouldn't without a gun.  The caution or fear I would of had to make me reconsider was erased by the fact I had a gun. 

Once I realized what I was doing I stopped.  I was putting myself in situations that legally were OK, but still risky at best......because my worse fear is actually having to shoot someone. I quoted that statement because that should be in a movie, not in real life. 

[tvc184]

11 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

I also read the entire investigation and court proceedings. I respect your opinion on this.

My opinion is that mistakes were made. Department policies were not followed by Arnold. He was later terminated after being reinstated. Whitehead's family settled out of court. So something was wrong. Murders of other people across the nation by LEO have changed many things. If this happened today, perhaps a different outcome.

Better to take the chance with a racist judge than the one with gun pointed at your chest.

"You just shot me.”

Arnold’s reply—“I damn sure did shoot you”

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. 

[tvc184]

22 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I agree, I was simply pointing out the someone is a robe is no more sensible than law enforcement many times.

I also agree with everyone else, just do what the police tell you, this was such a senseless and avoidable tragedy.

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

[thetragichippy]

14 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

I could have very easily carried maybe as many as 20 different handguns off-duty over the years.

or at the same time.....lol

[WOSdrummer99]

5 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

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. 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Lots of mistakes and small town politics. Not to mention the past run ins between these 2 that were never documented. Snakes in the grass.

[LumRaiderFan]

36 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

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

I’m mainly talking about liberal judges that legislate from the bench and are soft on crime.

[tvc184]

2 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

or at the same time.....lol

Never more than 3….  

 When I was on patrol I carried 6 weapons… not all firearms (2).

[tvc184]

10 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I’m mainly talking about liberal judges that legislate from the bench and are soft on crime.

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

[tvc184]

42 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Lots of mistakes and small town politics. Not to mention the past run ins between these 2 that were never documented. Snakes in the grass.

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.