TexasCHLforum.com

Its the militarization of the police. In my youth SWAT teams weren't used for arrests. They didn't even have SWAT teams. Police looked like police not military in different uniforms. There wasn't the kick type search and arrests, or at least if there were, it was only for really bad criminals.
I don't blame the police for this. There are forces working on them like everything else. But the more militarized you get the more perception changes from "protect and serve" to "occupier." When I lived in L.A. depending on the area the vibe was extreme.

On the plus side I'm happy that the local constabulary are professional and exihibit the "protect and serve" mantra. Nothing like the wife getting pulled over for a failed tail light, ending with a discussion of advice on where she can get the cheapest replacement lights and a discussion of how she likes her Beretta CC piece...

G26ster wrote:

RX8er wrote:
Cedar Park Dad, I don't understand your question in relation to you quoting me?

That's part of the problem when you hit "quote" to reply to a particular poster from a post that has had multiple quotes from multiple posters. Who said what is lost. It would be nice when quoting a specific post, that one strips out all the subsequent quotes that don't apply, before posting one's reply. I'm sure I'm guilty of the above on occasion, but I do try not to do it.

My bad, trying to get a handle on where everything is at on the screen. I was just looking to clarify what the actual law requirements were.

gigag04 wrote:If an arrest warrant exists there is no requirement to produce it. The law does require that any person arrested be brought before a magistrate where they are informed if the charges. I think there is a 3 day time frame.

With juveniles it's different. Juvs get DTAs (directive to apprehend) and not warrants. Little functional difference.

Once the officers say they have a warrant/DTA, and any person hinders/interferes with the apprehension of the wanted, they are subject to arrest for "Hinder Apprehension" (Tx PC 38.05). I don't know the details of the incident, but I have seen more than one parent go to jail in similiar circumstances.

Often times, roadside, many people claim that they have a right to see the warrant, or know what it's for, where its from, etc. In reality, once a peace officer makes the decision to place you under arrest, you are under arrest.

Thank you, looks like my questions has already been answered. Thanks!

RX8er wrote:I want to keep this thread open for the great discussion therefore, please stop calling the mom names.

She is one of those idiots who scream

This wouldn't be tolerated if we were talking about the LEO and I don't want to go down that route.

Wait to be clear here for my personal edification, if there is an arrest warrant out they don't need to provide such to the custodial parent in attempting to apprehend the minor, and instead just note that there is an arrest out?