TexasCHLforum.com

txinvestigator wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:

90north wrote:Someone may have posted this and I missed it, This assault took place almost 6 weeks ago. The officer in question went to "rehab" until March 5 and was originally charged with a misdemeanor. After the video surfaced the State Attorney General assumed the case and upgraded the charges to a felony. Be interesting to see how this plays out.

Can this really happen???

If the case was already adjudicated, and the police officer went to rehab (possibly by order of the court) how can they (AG) upgrade the charges just because the video made it to a wider audience???

Punished, but not punished enough??? hmmmmm???

6 weeks is really not enough time to adjudicate the case. I bet the officer did rehab and the demand of his department or the advice of his attorney to show that he is working on his problem (works for celebrities). Charges can be changed anytime before trial.

Yep...

90north wrote:Someone may have posted this and I missed it, This assault took place almost 6 weeks ago. The officer in question went to "rehab" until March 5 and was originally charged with a misdemeanor. After the video surfaced the State Attorney General assumed the case and upgraded the charges to a felony. Be interesting to see how this plays out.

Can this really happen???

If the case was already adjudicated, and the police officer went to rehab (possibly by order of the court) how can they (AG) upgrade the charges just because the video made it to a wider audience???

Punished, but not punished enough??? hmmmmm???

txinvestigator wrote:

Venus Pax wrote:We were actually taught in our CHL class that it is a bad idea to intervene unless we know the situation, as intervention is beyond our training.
Ex: One person attacking another in public place, and we don't know the situation prior to our arrival or our notice of the issue. How do we know the "victim" didn't actually start the brawl?
Also, how would any of us know that the scenario we're discussing wasn't a domestic disturbance? If I shoot him, I could very possibly be looking at civil charges from her! And it's highly likely she would collect. How does the law protect me there? Should my family and I go through that?

We were taught that, unless it's YOUR relative/friend and you KNOW the situation, call the police and gather as much info as possible. If they see you on the phone and start messing with you, its a different story.

Philosophically, that stance is arguable; however, you wrote that CHLers do not have a legal right to intervene, and that is not correct.

Personally I disagree with you. I don't care who started the assault, or if I could get sued, I would have intervened in that officer's assault of that bartender. It is a moral obligation I have. However, intervention is not required of a person.

Even though I believe one of the most important factors in the curriculum is the conflict resolution portion of the class, I am torn a little between the legality of intervention in third party disputes and the need to not escalate the situation...

Where a simple assault or a battery crime may exist, your intervention could cause someone to decide to bring something to the incident that could warrant the use of deadly force in the defense of yourself or someone else...

Like Txi implied that it could be a moral obligation for you to step in a try to diffuse a situation...

I believe most of us have already made the decision, and know where that line is drawn...

We are also told (and this is kinda the conflict) to not incite someone either into a confrontation...With this new Castle Doctrine bill being passed, I sense that there should be some re-evaluation of how you would handle certain third party senarios...

Maybe it effects some, maybe it doesn't...

Just something I'd toss out there to think about...