TexasCHLforum.com

Panda wrote:

EEllis wrote: We don't know that they did anything outside of policy or what they always did when conducting arrests. You don't blame the bottom rank because you dislike their policies.

I thought "just following orders" was discredited as a defense before I was born.

If following orders breaks the law but that really isn't the case here now is it.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:If you draw a gun in my vicinity I'd consider it aimed. If you weren't a cop and you drew a firearm on my family (but not aimed) you'd be very very dead.

Note: I am in no way condoning or recommending in any way acting in a seflf defense mode with police. Thats what "I refuse all consent" and the lawyer is for.

Yeah but the law doesn't and you might well say the same thing if someone was in the process of running down someone in your family so.........

OK let's look at it
1So?

2 Facts not in evidence. Further examination of the local paper revealed that the agents were making multipul arrests in the parking lot, 10 was the number I saw, over 2days. Trying to phrase it like there were 5+ agents to make that one arrest is less than accurate. After the girl refused to comply that all the agents in the area converged is entirely reasonable and doesn't really mean anything.

3 So? The law doesn't allow you to ignore cops if you didn't break the law. If they have RS they can and should stop you and you, by law, must comply. That you were not guilty is not a defense.

4 A gun was drawn but it was not even aimed. I'm not surprised that when a car that a suspect is in starts to drive away, with agents in front of the car, that someone drew a weapon. Maybe the agent shouldn't of done so, I'm not an expert on their use of force policy but it just doesn't seem out of line. De-escalation is all fine and well but if you are going to have agents making arrests you just can't take their right of defense away. As far as other dept policies, that still would reflect on the Agency not the agents so I'm not sure your point in the way this conversation is going. That a different agency has a different policy, well so?

5 That the agency hasn't stepped up is more the norm than anything else isn't it?

Finally I haven't said this was in or out of policy. I don't know and obviously you don't either. That has been my much repeated point.

talltex wrote:

EEllis wrote:These stories were based of a press release done up by the girls lawyer. One source, and only one, I saw actually called VABC to get their side and none did any real investigation. That VABC made, or will make, changes is great but in no way impacts anything I said. Mind you they could think their policies are just fine but someone is just trying to get the press off their back so your conclusion that it proves something is thin. Even so if you actually bother to look at what I say I never approve, support or in any way condone any policy or tactics that VABC has or uses. I just think that so far no one has even tried to say that any of the agents have broken or violated any law, policy or anything else so to call for these extreme responses is unwarranted.

Oh and if you don't think this story came from a press release how do you think it came about?

EEllis, you are always critical of opinions given that cannot be supported by documented sources...where did you see a disclosure citing the girl's attorney as the source? Maybe it was just investigative journalism. Regardless of the source, the DA's office stated that girl's version was "factually consistent" with what occurred. As for no one claiming the agents broke or violated any law...well, NEITHER DID THE GIRLS before they were subjected to an "over the top" assault by 7 agents when they had done NOTHING wrong. One of the agents DID jump on the hood of the car...at least one of them WAS beating on the windows...at least one of them DID have a gun pointed at the girls. The resisting/fleeing/assault charges were a poor attempt at CYA after the fact (that's purely my opinion).

You might be right that it wasn't a press release. It appears the reporter who "broke" the story has the courthouse beat and so she may just of read the pleadings.The statement the defence attorney filed with the court much better and unbiased. Mind you I don't say a bit of it is incorrect just that it is not evidence of what is claimed or enough for the actions that seem so urgent to some of those here.

Agents positioned themselves near the front of Daly's SUV and one ended up on the hood as she maneuvered to get away, according to a criminal complaint.

So it, according to the agents, it wasn't someone jumping on the hood that scared her, she was already driving away. And no one ever said the gun was pointed at her, not even her.

Daly said she and roommates were “terrified.” The three women said agents yelled at them to get out of the car, banged on the windows and pulled at the door handles. When one of the agents drew a gun, Daly said, “Our panic heightened.” All of the women described the agents as confrontational.

A gun was drawn but nowhere have I seen anything about it being pointed at anyone. One story described the gun at low ready but since there have been more than one fact that has differed between stories, like 6 or 7 agents, I wouldn't call that gospel but none of the stories I've read has the gun pointed at anyone.

The girls did technically break several laws but it was felt they had reason, they were under duress. I've not really argued that. The officers did not, so far as anyone has been able to come up with, break any laws. We don't know that they did anything outside of policy or what they always did when conducting arrests. You don't blame the bottom rank because you dislike their policies.


http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/virgi ... 0f31a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dave2 wrote:

EEllis wrote:More condemnation and calls for firing based on a one sided PR piece and without actually saying what they did wrong except "bad Judgment"?

What's wrong with firing someone for bad judgment? Bad judgment leads to bad actions, which can have costly consequences. It'd be irresponsible to not fire someone for bad judgment. Especially when we're talking about people who're being paid to run around looking for trouble, bad judgment eventually gets the wrong people killed.

If they used the normal tactics that they always use then the agents at the bottom are not the ones who should take the hit. They do as they are told/trained. Maybe the supervisory agent on scene might be responsible but for all we know they may have done the exact same thing 1000 times and just this time it went wrong and or got press this time. Is this any different than other states? No one here has the info needed, at least as far as I've read, to make these sweeping statements with any real legitimacy. I'm not supporting, approving, whitewashing or anything else, about the actions of VABC. It's just that the statements people make and the facts they use to support them are ........ well off.

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:and so it goes again. More condemnation and calls for firing based on a one sided PR piece and without actually saying what they did wrong except "bad Judgment"? By the way most cops for any major agency are civil service. Fire them for "bad Judgment" and when they sue and get their jobs back it will cost the agency even more money.

I really wish you would quit lying about this. These were news stories, not one sided PR pieces. And please post a link for the supposed claims of the girl's lawyer, which you have repeated ad naseum without ever backing it up. Since the department has already announced that it will be making changes based on a review of the incident, it's obvious they are more willing to be open-minded than you are. You've continued this unabated unreasoned completely blinded defense of the police for eleven pages now. Numerous people have made reasonable points about what went wrong that night, yet you stubbornly refuse to even consider that the ABC agents might have done something wrong. I'd appreciate it if you would just stop, but I know you won't, so the last word is yours.

These stories were based of a press release done up by the girls lawyer. One source, and only one, I saw actually called VABC to get their side and none did any real investigation. That VABC made, or will make, changes is great but in no way impacts anything I said. Mind you they could think their policies are just fine but someone is just trying to get the press off their back so your conclusion that it proves something is thin. Even so if you actually bother to look at what I say I never approve, support or in any way condone any policy or tactics that VABC has or uses. I just think that so far no one has even tried to say that any of the agents have broken or violated any law, policy or anything else so to call for these extreme responses is unwarranted.

Oh and if you don't think this story came from a press release how do you think it came about?

sodchemist wrote:

And I would say many things but I believe that I would be violating the comment policy which I believe you just did in your comment. You have based your opinion on a pr piece put out by the girls defence attorney designed to get them off from their charges. You are calling for firing and jail time but haven't pointed to any violation of the, you know, actual law or even that the agents violated any of their agencies policies. Cops are human beings and are entitled to the same protections that we all enjoy and deserve. Due process, to be considered innocent until proven guilty, the chance to confront their accuser, and here is a big one to actually break a law before going to jail. "But the girls didn't break any law!" You'll cry in response to the last. Yes they did. They resisted, they fled, they assaulted. Not their explanation is because they were just that scared as to why they did so. Fine, but that doesn't mean they didn't do the crime just they had a reason they shouldn't be held guilty for the crimes. The rest of your screed was so off point that I'm not even going to bother.

i agree; the law enforcement officers of course deserve due process per criminal charges (and civil charges, which will cost someone money--hopefully not the public). but officers such as these (or at least the officers that were leading the mob) need to be terminated immediately because their poor judgement is a financial and safety liability; the officers displayed incompetence. if i was leading this agency, and hired people such as these to perform a duty, and then i received this unprofessional display of immaturity, poor judgement, and incompetence, then i would definitely fire the leader of law enforcement mob. there just isn't any reason to keep officers such as these on payroll when there are so many other better candidates and veterans willing and able to do a better job. someone could have gotten seriously hurt. personally--and i know this will be unpopular--i don't even care if the story we are hearing is one-sided and biased to the young innocent student. law enforcement officers need to be above reproach, or the public will lose trust. firing a public servant in order to restore or repair broken trust is more important than preserving a few mediocre careers. we do it in politics all of the time.

and so it goes again. More condemnation and calls for firing based on a one sided PR piece and without actually saying what they did wrong except "bad Judgment"? By the way most cops for any major agency are civil service. Fire them for "bad Judgment" and when they sue and get their jobs back it will cost the agency even more money.

talltex wrote: Their MAIN job is to enforce the regulations governing the ESTABLISHMENTS that are LICENSED for the SALE AND DISTRIBUTION of alcoholic beverages...not to try and "catch minors with booze".

I'll be honest I don't know anyone from VABC and I don't know what they were doing that night but in general "catch minors with booze" is a huge part of the job of state ABC agencies.

Regardless of their job description, having SEVEN Agents doing a stakeout to "catch minors with booze" is a ridiculous waste of manpower and tax dollars. I'd like to see some of their reports showing how many violations they usually issued citations for and the dollar revenue generated compared to what the Agency spent in salaries, benefits and overtime to have seven agents sitting out there all evening. As for the relevancy of "how it used to be", I think the differences, between now and then, is one of the reasons we don't currently have the same respect and trust for law enforcement agencies we used to.

If it's for our children and their future you know the money doesn't matter. Please read that with a bit of a sarcastic tone. That's a policy decision. These agents don't decide that stuff, heck even the higher up basicly react to the politicians who react to the screaming lobbyists. Since I live in Texas I really don't think it's my place to worry about how another State spends its money.

And the last thing I remember saying about "how it used to be" was to those who were complaining about no RS and that now law enforcement has much less freedom nevermind those that claim are rights are being run roughshod over by the cops. It's funny the more we restrict our cops the more we think they should be restricted. Mind you I'm not arguing for or against just marveling at the logic.

And also, the Virginia ABC has an "Underage Buyer Program" in which they utilize underage operatives, who go into licensed establishments to attempt to purchase alcoholic beverages. They work in conjunction with ABC Special Agents to uncover violations by the License Holders....so, why are they out doing stakeouts like this at all ?

Yeah cus they can only do the one thing? Mind you I don't even know that they were doing a stake out. For all we know they were planning to do clubs that night and just were meeting up in the parking lot of the grocery store. None of us has the slightest idea but why not make declarations and sweeping statements about crap we have no idea. It is the internet afterall.

chasfm11 wrote:
In other words, the act of enforcing a law that wasn't being broken against two scared girls created criminals. And you don't have a problem with that? I do. I also had a problem with the man being killed in his garage in Ft. Worth when he wasn't breaking any laws either. I will always have a problem with the act of police enforcement creating criminals who weren't before the act began.

I'm a great supporter of LE. Our daughter is a dispatcher. But I think that one of the most effective tools that departments have is Internal Affairs and believe that IA should be involved in every case where otherwise innocent people suddenly are criminals. You can say that the girls used bad judgement in trying to protect themselves. But their "crime" in no way justifies the end result.

I believe that blind support of the outcomes of cases like this does more to undermine public confidence in LE than an honest evaluation of the outcome and making adjustments to the protocols as needed. I sense that you would want to see this situation repeated again under similar circumstances. I don't see much that I would ever want repeated. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

In theory, because we really don't know enough about what happened, the girls knew they were not committing a crime but the agent had RS to investigate if they were. So far no one has indicated what laws they feel the agents may have broken or policies they may have violated. I have no issue with the incident being investigated at all. Heck it should be. I would just wait till I had more than the self serving PR piece from the girls lawyer before condemning anyone. But that's just me.

As to creating a criminal I don't know if I would put that much blame on law enforcement in these situations. Sometimes they do but other times it's like they stumbled on a tripwire. Sure if they hadn't gone down that path they wouldn't of tripped it but the major factor about guilt , to me, would be if they were legal in going down the path not what would've happened without all law enforcement involvement. Do you see what I mean? If what the cops did that causes the reaction is ok, then I can't see holding them responsible.

woohoo my point is made

Great now we are reduced to primary school debate tactics. Cant wait for the "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument.

JP171 wrote:I have been thru all 11 pages so far, sorry to say there is an individual that is nothing more than a police apologist and I disrespect that wholly and emphatically. the ABC agents were in the wrong in how the situation was handled and some acts by the agents were bordering on criminal so they made up something( lets lie and get them arrested for contempt of cop) that would allow them to be taken into custody. this type of activity should have strong consequences for the agents such as termination, jail time and never being able to be any type of LEO anywhere. We all need to remember that the law enforcement community is there to maintain order as civil SERVANTS not as those who are appointed to control us, this is not a police state and I pray hope and dream that it never will be. I know that most LEO's are generally good people who have a hard job, but then you have a small minority that believe it is their life's mission to control and abase all subjects of the crown of police power, the thin blue line needs to be abolished and penalized as an illegal and terrorist organization, make the LEO's responsible to the people not for them, remind the would be KGB type of LEO's that they too are human and not exempt

And I would say many things but I believe that I would be violating the comment policy which I believe you just did in your comment. You have based your opinion on a pr piece put out by the girls defence attorney designed to get them off from their charges. You are calling for firing and jail time but haven't pointed to any violation of the, you know, actual law or even that the agents violated any of their agencies policies. Cops are human beings and are entitled to the same protections that we all enjoy and deserve. Due process, to be considered innocent until proven guilty, the chance to confront their accuser, and here is a big one to actually break a law before going to jail. "But the girls didn't break any law!" You'll cry in response to the last. Yes they did. They resisted, they fled, they assaulted. Not their explanation is because they were just that scared as to why they did so. Fine, but that doesn't mean they didn't do the crime just they had a reason they shouldn't be held guilty for the crimes. The rest of your screed was so off point that I'm not even going to bother.

chasfm11 wrote:

EEllis wrote: Doesn't matter why I would think it or what you might think. In this case depending on the flavor I think the carton has colors and designs that would lead me to think it was beer not soda. Now other people may look and use different input to draw other conclusions but if the agent saw something and that led them to believe that the package was likely beer. What matters for the RS for the stop to be found legal in court is that the agent can articulate the reasons for their belief and that a judge find that explanation of the agents belief reasonable. The judge doesn't need to agree or think that he would also think the same just that to the agent it was reasonable. I hope I gave a decent explanation because an expert I'm not. Is it a bit arbitrary? You could look at it like that. You can take 5 cops have them look at a situation and only 1 may see RS and even though no one else sees RS if the 1 cop can explain it in court then it may well be good RS.

I'm sorry but what you said scares the heck out of me. Paraphrased, it says "justice administered by the officer with the most vivid imagination." I don't accept that. In this case, there compound mistakes. I judge the worst of those mistakes to be the DA going along with the events and filing the initial charges against the girls. There should have been more of an investigation before that happened.

We seem to have lost the concept that there are checks and balances. For me, one of the first checks should be from police administration who reviews what an individual officer does and allows it to continue or stops it right there. The second check is that the DA should be carefully reviewing what is brought to him or her to make sure that the elements necessary to prosecute the case are available or that they are not.

I would submit that if 5 officers review a situation and 4 of them don't see RS, retraining is needed. Either 4 of them are missing things or the 1 is finding things that aren't there. I completely understand that breakthroughs in some cases come from a single officer finding a piece of evidence that was overlooked. For me, that is vastly different than 5 officers looking at a live scenario and only one of them seeing something that requires further action. There are enough blatant infractions of the law that we don't need to be pursuing subtleties

Look this is not new. Heck there are more restrictions of cops now that there ever were in the history of this country. They just also have a bit better protections than before in some jurisdictions, meaning they can only be fired when they violate the law or their dept regs not just because there is bad press.

I'm sorry you have such an issue with the RS doctrine but you do realize that it has only gotten stricter over the years requiring even more from law enforcement. As to your "submission" , it's impossible to say that with the info given!!! That's why we have judges who review RS. Maybe the guy notices some smell, has better vision, haw 30 years of experience, has a pet parrot and happens to know exotic pet statutes the others don't. You would take Sherlock Holmes and kick him out of the Dept because he is too observant? Yes he is fictional but serves a point. I made the 5 to 1 comment to illustrate it was just about what is in the mind of the individual officer and their ability to articulate it to the court that determines RS. Does that leave a lot to the vagaries of human opinion? Well yes but until the robots take over that is what we are stuck with.

Now as for as the DA taking charges I think you are even farther off base. You have suspects who fled the scene and hit 2 agents. After investigating the DA felt that prosecution would be wrong but deciding without info would of been just a dereliction of his duty.

MasterOfNone wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

EEllis wrote:Your interpretation is simply not that of our courts. If they believed a person was most likely underage and that they observed what looked like alcohol then that equates to RS if the officer can articulate why they think that.

I would argue that for it to look like alcohol, it actually has to look like alcohol...Merely not looking like something that's not alcohol shouldn't be good enough, IMHO.

HUH? Look the package, IMO, is such that if it were sitting on a table and I was 15' away and looked over I could easily think it was beer. That's all it takes.

This is the point I was getting at: If one can't identify the box, why would one think it is beer and not soda or water? it seems there is a predisposition to assume the worst of an unknown.

Doesn't matter why I would think it or what you might think. In this case depending on the flavor I think the carton has colors and designs that would lead me to think it was beer not soda. Now other people may look and use different input to draw other conclusions but if the agent saw something and that led them to believe that the package was likely beer. What matters for the RS for the stop to be found legal in court is that the agent can articulate the reasons for their belief and that a judge find that explanation of the agents belief reasonable. The judge doesn't need to agree or think that he would also think the same just that to the agent it was reasonable. I hope I gave a decent explanation because an expert I'm not. Is it a bit arbitrary? You could look at it like that. You can take 5 cops have them look at a situation and only 1 may see RS and even though no one else sees RS if the 1 cop can explain it in court then it may well be good RS.

Dave2 wrote:

EEllis wrote:Your interpretation is simply not that of our courts. If they believed a person was most likely underage and that they observed what looked like alcohol then that equates to RS if the officer can articulate why they think that.

I would argue that for it to look like alcohol, it actually has to look like alcohol...Merely not looking like something that's not alcohol shouldn't be good enough, IMHO.

HUH? Look the package, IMO, is such that if it were sitting on a table and I was 15' away and looked over I could easily think it was beer. That's all it takes.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:hardly. His standard appears to be, if they have a bag, they are subject to a stop. Thats no standard at all as anyone with a bag can be stopped. Thats not reasonable in a free country.

Nope doesn't even come close to my standard but I wasn't talking about my standard anyway I was talking about the standard for law enforcement in Virginia which I should not be ragged on for stating what I believe are facts regardless how one feels about them. I didn't write the law, make any of the legal decisions, set the agency policy, I just stated what I believe those things are. Heck most of the time I don't even state if I agree with it or not.

To be clear I'm not ragging on you EEllis. I'm ragging on that nonstandard standard. It makes a mockery of the 4th and 5th Amendments when there's literally no cause for a search.

Your interpretation is simply not that of our courts. If they believed a person was most likely underage and that they observed what looked like alcohol then that equates to RS if the officer can articulate why they think that. The correctness of those beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with acceptability of the officers, or agents, beliefs as relates to RS. So the idea that it couldn't of been a legal stop because it wasn't booze has no legal basis. Courts have ruled that it's what an officer thinks not what is fact that matters.