TexasCHLforum.com

RX8er wrote:Problem-oriented policing

http://www.popcenter.org/about/?p=whatiscpop" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem-oriented_policing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

lol....not exactly the meaning we are talking about

gigag04 wrote:

bdickens wrote:
Who cares? What crime was the mother arrested for?

POP is my guess

ding...ding...ding...we have a winner! and THAT'S what all the fussing on here has been about.

jimlongley wrote: My point is that the cop said there was a warrant when there wasn't, and mom, probably from watching too many cop shows on TV, insisted on seeing it (rules are different for search warrants) and was arrested for something, which I still see as a violation of her rights, and an apology is just not adequate compensation.

That's my concern also. If there WAS no warrant issued, at the time they first went to the house to make the arrest of the boy, then she could not have been guilty of obstructing the execution of it (Hindering Apprehension), which would seem to make HER arrest illegal. What her son did or did not do, and regardless of her right to see a legally issued warrant/DTA, there were no grounds to arrest either of them, AT THAT TIME.

texanjoker wrote:

gigag04 wrote:So many opinions - so little information...

Feel free to enlighten us, rather than just insinuating that non-LEO's are incapable of reading or understanding a legal statute. My statement regarding the difference in the rules for LEO's and private citizens is nothing but my personal opinion and was presented as such. The crux of this discussion however, is about whether or not an officer has the legal right to arrest someone, for an offense which they did not witness, prior to a warrant/DTA having been issued by a judge. You stated: "Once the officers SAY they have a warrant/DTA, and any person hinders/intereferes with the apprehension of the wanted, they are subject to arrest for "Hinder Apprehension"....etc. Therein lies the problem, it would seem. The Officer SAID he had a warrant, but in fact, it had not been issued by the judge until the following day. If so, then the mother was arrested for interefering with the execution of a warrant/DTA which didn't exist at that time, which certainly seems to meet the definition of a false arrest. So what are those of us with "so little information" missing?

EEllis wrote:She has no right to see a warrant before an arrest. As long as the police were acting in good faith, if they believed they where acting in accordance with the law even if their actions were later found to be contrary to the law then there wouldn't be any criminal liability. If the officers knew and believed they were operating in contrary to the law then there could be several State and Federal Charges.

Another example where "equal protection under the law" has been transformed into "different strokes for different folks". If an individual violates a law, they are guilty, regardless of whether or not they acted in good faith. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"...sound familiar? That's the standard our society holds ordinary, untrained citizens too. If THAT is what the legal systems demands of the CITIZENS, then shouldnt those undergoing special training and given special powers and authority to enforce those laws, be held to at least the same standard? In my business, I have to abide by a large number of special laws and regulations, and my failure to do so would result in severe civil and criminal penalties...if I tried to use the excuse that "well I sincerely believed I was doing it right", I 'd be laughed out of court.