TexasCHLforum.com

polly wrote:

EEllis wrote:First can only arrest a person not a car.

Likewise, one can only unlawfully restrain a person not a car.

If you block the vehicle are you not restraining the movement of the passengers? Mind you it really matters little what charge could be applied. They could just do a disorderly conduct charge if they felt like it.

jmra wrote: I never said she did or didn't block anyone. What I said is there has not been any evidence presented to prove she blocked anyone.
In my response to the hypothetical question was if I was blocked in by someone I would talk to the person to see if I could rectify the problem. If the problem could not be resolved (assuming the other people hadn't already called the police) I would call 911 in order to bring resolution to the issue. Again IMHO, there is no evidence presented that she blocked anyone.

So everything I just happened to mention is what? I understand if you just don't want to bother but I did go down a list point by point and your response is `There is no evidence`. Sure there have to be some assumptions, like the reporter got the facts correct, but that is hardly "no evidence".

jmra wrote: I never suggested that she should have been arrested. What I am saying is the officer obviously didn't have enough to arrest her or he would have. If the department had evidence against her they wouldn't be sitting there taking it on the chin. The officer screwed up and most likely violated the law in the process.
Of course she is just a citizen, an uncharged citizen you have repeatedly declared guilty based strictly on speculation. If she only had a badge...

I didn't say you did. I do think you stated that you didn't believe she blocked anyone in and regardless if you are convinced I do be live I gave a good case on why I hold a different view. I also think you indicated that if someone did block you in then you would call 911 which to me sounds like you believe that legally there would be issues with doing so, not that you agree she did. So I gave a good accounting of why I think the officer would have PC to arrest her and it's self evident why he wouldn't want to arrest her even if he could. He may think she crossed the line but that doesn't mean he wants to book granny. The dept made no comment at all and I'm not enough of a legal scholar to know how the officers actions should be considered under these circumstances. We have a law with no penalty, actions that would of been legal with arrest, pc for that arrest, an officer who actions could be viewed in both positive and negitive ways at one time.

jmra wrote:
As usual you have taken what I said out of context (I don't expect anything less). If you look at what I actually stated you will see that I believed the question did not at all fit the current case thus I was answering based on the "hypothetical" question asked. But you chose to ignore that because then you couldn't make the argument you wanted to make.
You can believe there is evidence of wrong doing, but the fact is none has been presented. If I suggested an officer had committed a crime based on the same information you have used to convict this woman you would have a coronary.

Looking at it again I see your point. I think you were saying you don't think the woman did block anyone in but if you were to be blocked in then you would call. Mind you that almost pointless to my argument and in fact only questions what happened because you seem to agree that blocking in would be illegal if that did happen. The main evidence you seem to believe is she said parked, as in parked behind them, instead of something liked blocked them in. I think the evidence, if the news is complete, would be enough for a basic conclusion that she indeed did block them in. Why? Well her description while not requiring her to have blocked the car in doesn't conflict with her having done so. I think the words were chosen not to give the impression that she did so but not to denied it either which in and of itself makes me suspicious. We have a report of the officer saying she was trying to block them in, and while you state that as a he said she said I really think it's more a third party says while she is vague about it. Then there is the description of the event. We have an incident where it would be very hard to believe the car wouldn't leave if it was not blocked in. Now I'm not wanting to convict based on these reports but trying to portray it as no evidence at all seems weak. There seems ample PC for several different things to have been charged and all I was really trying to point out was she easily and properly could of been arrested. At which time her firearm would of been seized. So what this cop really did that everyone is coming down on him so hard for, is not take granny to jail. The only reason it is an issue is because he didn't when he could of done so. Those who demand an arrest are totally right on the law. I suppose he should be informed that next time he must book granny if he wants to take a gun till people cool down.

Notice I made these statements without resorting to personal attacks or comments. Personally I don't think the ones you made are accurate, have any real value to the argument, and are more than a bit condescending and insulting. I had to bite my tongue, if you will, myself, but there is no real discussion that can come from responses like that.

jmra wrote:if the person is rational we can have a discussion about the problem. If it is not quickly resolved, I'd call 911. If the car was mine and it had been recently painted I'd have the receipt in the car showing when it had been painted. The odds are the dates would prove to the lady that I was not who she was looking for.

Why would you call 911? you seem clear in the fact that you think the ladies actions are lawful so what are the cops going to do? Heck if her actions are lawful how can the cop even tell her to move? Wait you think that you should have to prove in a parking lot that you didn't do something to be allowed to leave in your car?

What bothers me the most about this story is the fact that we have not been presented with a shred of evidence that the woman did anything wrong. It is obvious that the officer did. If he felt that the woman's actions were sufficient to confiscate her weapon and she actually did what the officer claimed, he should have arrested her. Making accusations and confiscating legally owned firearms without filing charges is simply un-American.

I got to say that there is evidence that she committed an offence. That to me would be "wrong". You're right though the officer,by the law, should have arrested her. At that point he obviously could of seized the gun. How dare he not throw granny in jail. That's un american. Let's all commit to a "throw granny in jail" campaign to get the DA to file charges.

Point being while you are right he only should seize a gun if there is an arrest or it's evidence I have to think that the fact of the situation, that she could of legally been arrested, need to be acknowledged in the rhetoric.

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.

SewTexas wrote:

EEllis wrote:

tomtexan wrote:
Maybe she was making a citizens arrest by holding them in place while waiting for the LEO to arrive.

To effect a citizens arrest the crime has to happen within ones view. She was not a witness to the crime she was holding them for as such she could not make a legal citizens arrest. As to what crime she committed I bet there could be several depending on what a DA thought. One could argue unlawful restraint PC 20.02, Obstructing a highway or other passageway PC 42.03, are just two off the top of my head but I'm sure there are other possible options.

OK, but the daughter, the one who was IN the accident was in the car. why couldn't she be the one "holding them in place"? she did say it was probably the car.

She said it "could" be them. First can only arrest a person not a car. So while it could be the car, and that wouldn't be even close enough to perform a legal citizens arrest, nowhere does it say she identified the person who drove it when it hit her. There is also the issue about if a citizens arrest would even be legal for the incident because it is only for felonies and breaches of the public peace "in view". Then there is the "days later" thing.

Most people get the whole citizens arrest thing wrong and the cops deal with it. The use their discretion and don't want to bust everyone who gets it a little off but who means well. This lady may have meant well but her actions were wrong and she needs to know not to do it again but she doesn't need jail and the cop presumedly thought that also.

SewTexas wrote:like I said, if they had a problem with it, why didn't they call 911?

she asked them to wait and they did.

it sounds like it was all quite polite.


(btw: by your definition, I've got cause to call the cops every time I'm at HEB these days, I'm sure they'll appreciate it, thanks)

They did because they couldn't get in their car and drive away. They, by the article, weren't waiting because they wanted to. The difference between being blocked in by traffic and someone doing so to prevent one from leaving is obvious.

tomtexan wrote:
Maybe she was making a citizens arrest by holding them in place while waiting for the LEO to arrive.

To effect a citizens arrest the crime has to happen within ones view. She was not a witness to the crime she was holding them for as such she could not make a legal citizens arrest. As to what crime she committed I bet there could be several depending on what a DA thought. One could argue unlawful restraint PC 20.02, Obstructing a highway or other passageway PC 42.03, are just two off the top of my head but I'm sure there are other possible options.

Keith B wrote:

EEllis wrote:

jmra wrote: The woman committed a crime? I didn't realize you were the judge and jury in this case.

By her own admission she committed a crime. What a court would do is figure out exactly what crime it was and if she needed punishment but it is illegal to do what she did.

What crime did she commit? She didn't state she blocked them in, just parked behind them. The officer supposedly said she 'attempted' to block them'

They wanted to leave and she wouldn't allow them to do so because she wanted the cops to get there before allowing them to leave. What gives her the right to do so? Why is this even a question. You walk out a store and someone decides to "park"behind you to prevent you from leaving?

SewTexas wrote:

EEllis wrote:

jmra wrote: The woman committed a crime? I didn't realize you were the judge and jury in this case.

By her own admission she committed a crime. What a court would do is figure out exactly what crime it was and if she needed punishment but it is illegal to do what she did.

what crime did she commit? she asked them to wait, they waited. doesn't sound like a crime to me. actually sounds pretty polite. if there were a crime in progress the other people should have called 911 themselves, shouldn't they?

She blocked them in with her car because of a accident that happened on a different day that she wasn't involved in. She purposely interfered with their freedom of movement and it is illegal in Texas to do so unless you are a peace officer or making a citizens arrest. She did not have the standing for making an arrest.

jmra wrote: The woman committed a crime? I didn't realize you were the judge and jury in this case.

By her own admission she committed a crime. What a court would do is figure out exactly what crime it was and if she needed punishment but it is illegal to do what she did.

RX8er wrote:I would like to think that there is more to the story than is being published. Wonder if this will be a test case or just settled out of court. Sure sounds like it's headed to the attorneys.

Why? She has her gun back, was told at the scene how and where to get it and did so within a few days. What kind of monetary award do you think she would get and how much money and time would she go thru before getting it? This is just not that kind of case.

The woman committed a crime by blocking in the people's car. She did not have the right to do so. That she got lucky and 2 people were arrested for issues totally unrelated to why she blocked them in doesn't really matter. She did not use her gun in doing so but she easily could of been arrested and she wouldn't be having a CHL right now anyways. This was a cheap lesson that I don't think the woman learned. I think the situation may have been that to keep the gun he should of arrested the woman, which he obviously didn't want to, but he felt something needed to be done. If that is the case who here would of made the cop arrest the woman?