TexasCHLforum.com

jmra wrote:

WildBill wrote:

OldCurlyWolf wrote:

Keith B wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Keith B wrote: That's not her story. She stated she pulled in behind them. Third party, the paper said the officer stated she blocked them in. And, Unlawful Restraint does not constitute movement in a vehicle. It is against the individual person. If she didn't physically restrain them or hold them at gunpoint, then IMO no crime was committed. No matter, she had to have been arrested or he legally should have given her gun back. End of story.

So you don't think parking behind someone in such a way as to keep them from leaving is the equivalent to blocking them in? Or is it that you don't believe that is what she did? Sure I'm just going off a news story but I don't believe the people would of sat there and waited just because she asked. Reread the statute. "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person's liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by confining the person." Forcing someone to abandon their property to be able to have freedom of movement seems to fit in that definition. Mind you it would be severe overcharging in this case and I don't know that any court would convict but I see no reason it couldn't be charged. Mind you I don't know the case law but the definition seems more than close enough. There is also the fact that there are other charges that also could of been placed on her. Unlawful restraint was just one. Obstructing a highway or other passageway PC 42.03 would also fit and I have no doubt there are more. What allows her to seize and hold someone elses property? If you were walking out a store and the security purposely parked behind you to prevent you from leaving how would you be feeling? Because it's just your car so your free to go.

I say there are three sides to this story; hers, the officer's and the truth. She says she didn't, he says she did, and somewhere in between is the truth. As already stated, if she violated a law, arrest her for the charge and take her gun, but the officer confiscated her gun and didn't charge her with anything, which is totally against the law.

Keith,

Technically, he actually committed Aggravated Robbery, under Color of Authority. Nice little 1st degree felony there. Personally, I believe he should at least be charged with a Class A theft charge(assuming we have an accurate story here), but then I have a real problem with officers that overstep their bounds.

OCW

I predict he won't be charged with anything and she won't get her gun back any time soon.

I thought she got the gun back but not the ammo.