TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote:

srothstein wrote:And I love the way the newspaper reports his training record like taking those classes on cultural diversity and racial profiling was something unusual.

I honestly don't see anything but objective reporting there. The list of the officer's qualifications reads as if it came straight from the police spokesman.

You could very well be right. I just take it with a bad connotation when someone is accused of prejudice and then the media says he has had this list of diversity training. I read it as them implying he needed the training when it was just taken as required by state law. This could also be my bias against the way the media reports things, and I do think it should have been left out of the article completely. They did leave out a bunch of other training I would bet was on the same record. And yes, it could have been the fault of the police media relations officer and his editing of the training list. I really had not thought of it that way.

And I do have to agree with CHLSteve. When a case happens like this one, there needs to be a thorough investigation into what happened. My complaint is not the media investigating so much as their jumping to conclusions before the investigation and the way they ask questions to lead people to conclusions.

Sidetracking a little bit, we see the same thing now with the Illinois governor. He was accused of a crime by the FBI, not even indicted yet and they won't indict for a while while they finish their investigation, but the Senate and the people seem to have concluded he is guilty, at least in part due to the media reporting (with a large part due to unplaced faith in the FBI also and another part due to the history of corruption in Chicago politics).

Thanks, Jim. This clears up quite a bit for me. I know now why he thought the car was stolen (dispatcher said so) and he actually did have back-up available. The family is claiming the victim did not know they were cops because the spotlight was pointed at them. But the fact that there was a spotlight indicates to me that it was a marked car and the officers were in uniform. I could be wrong about the markings if Bellaire has gone to those stealth marked cars with the markings the same color as the paint job. The kids were lying quietly and the family was just talking to the officers when the officer decided to shove the mom against the wall. The kid just raised his head and the sergeant fired three rounds, two hitting the house instead of the kid lying on the ground.

Somehow, I just do not believe the family is quite telling the truth. But that could be my suspicious nature or my bias towards law enforcement saying that.

And I love the way the newspaper reports his training record like taking those classes on cultural diversity and racial profiling was something unusual. No mention of the fact that every cop in the state had to take racial profiling during that two year period, or the requirement for all of us to take cultural diversity once every cycle (now four years but was once per two years).

seamusTX wrote:In Harris County, my guess is that you would be prosecuted into bankruptcy.

I have to say this is a newspaper report, and we all know what that means.

If, as reported, the officer ordered the citizens to the ground without announcing that he was a police officer, the citizens were morally and legally justified in protecting themselves in any way they could.

I talked about this story with some friends face-to-face today. I don't know what police policy is, but we saw the following problems:

My thoughts on some of your questions. Of course, without knowing exactly what was going on and the officers thoughts, we cannot know anything for sure. I am takign the officer's side here, for obvious reasons, but I also admit that the point of view of the victim might be 100% accurate (racial profiling might have been all it was). Somehow, I think there was more involved than what the article reports though.

The officer "thought" the SUV was stolen but did not confirm it.

The only way to confirm a stolen car is to stop it and identify the driver and check the vehicle. A big part of the question is going to be why he thought it was stolen.

The suspected stolen vehicle was now parked on the street, unoccupied, and readily available for recovery.

If they wanted recovery of the property only, this is true. The officer was also thinking of trying to arrest the thieves.

The "suspects" were entering a home, where they would presumably be available for apprehension.

Until the officer identifies the suspects he has no way of knowing who they are or if it is even their home. It is very common for burglars to use a stolen car, so he MIGHT have thought it was a burglary in progress also. I don't think so, but it is a possibility that may have entered his mind. More importantly, it was not the home of one of the two people in the car, so the argument would not hold up even if the car had been stolen. You have to know who it is you want to arrets later.

The officer did not call for backup.

I don't know that this is a true statement. I would guess the officer was calling for backup and thought it was rolling when the car pulled over. The whole thing might have gone down while the backup was en route.

The officer did not cuff the "suspects."

This is my first reason for thinking there is more to this story. He probably did not have time to get them cuffed before the family came out. He might also have still been trying to control them at gun point with backup on the way to cuff. A lone officer cannot cuff two felony suspects safely.

The officer went to the pistol first instead of using his Taser on a man not known to be armed or dangerous.

I don't know if he had a Taser or not. They are not nearly as common as some people think (my department does not authorize them at all). In addition, when you stop felons int he progress of committing a crime (such as driving a stolen car) you generally go for a display of force (at gunpoint) to help prevent trouble. Again, the big question here is going to be why the officer thought the car was stolen to begin with.

I am more puzzled by the statement that the victim leaned up and got shot. I don't know exactly how that happened or what they mean.

Here is my thoughts on how this went down reading between the lines.

The officer thought he had a stolen car and called it in. The car pulled over and the two people got out. The officer pulled in behind them and yelled for them to stop. He probably took a pretty standard felony stop position by his car door with the gun out. He proned out the two people and started to approach them to get better control while backup was on the way. Family heard the yelling and came out to see what was going on. Mother sees son proned out and cop with gun drawn and panics. Officer starts telling her to back up and clear the area, yelling. He is trying to gain control of the situation and she is trying to get her son out of trouble. She may have approached the officer and he shoved her back. Son sees the shove and starts to get up. Officer thinks son is attacking him and shoots in self defense. Mistakes made on both sides and race had something to do with it. The racism may have been from the officer making the stop and how he handled the people at the scene. It may have been from the family based on their experience and lack of trust of cops. Given that most of the time when I hear someone yell racial profiling, I think they are the prejudiced ones (this is one of my prejudices) even though I admit it does happen occasionally.

I really want to know why the officer thought the car was stolen. And, one of the reasons I think there is a lot more to the story is the fact that the officer had not gotten a return on the registration with that address on it. It is pretty hard to think a car is stolen when it is pulling into where the registration comes back to, unless he had gotten a hit saying it was stolen.