TexasCHLforum.com

tomtexan wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:There is an added incentive to get that judgement correct when it comes to things like free speech.

Freedom of speech was the furthest thing from his mind in the heat of the moment. All he knew was that this lady had thrown a kink into his plans for that morning or afternoon and he was a little upset about it and did what his first reaction was. And that was to put the bracelets on her to teach her a lesson.

I don't know what was in the arresting officer's (or his superior's) mind. I'm still giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm hoping if they knew something that the rest of us don't , it will come to light soon. If she was sent to jail to teach her a lesson, I hope she gets a lot richer.

gigag04 wrote: I think they both escalated the situation into something it shouldn't have been. I'm not sure how you construe my comments as support - and I'm not sure how my "blind support" for the officer is different than yours for the lady, but TBH, I'm not really that interested in arguing the point. I find the whole situation more humorous than appalling - but maybe it's because I deal with similiar issues on a daily basis.

....to a point. They both escalated the situation. The question for me is did either of them do anything illegal?
If the lady had been cited with a pending fine, I might agree that it was just a humorous situation that would be resolved in court. But the lady went to jail. That pretty much ruins the joke for me. If there was basis for the arrest and detention, I say hurray for the officer. But that basis does not exist, at least for me, in the information that has been provided.

Maybe I'm too melodramatic, but when you cart a citizen off to jail, there had better be a good reason, based on the law. If, on the other hand, the detention was a bullying tactic, it should be illegal. I do understand that life is not filled with black and white situations and that we are all capable of poor judgement. There is an added incentive to get that judgement correct when it comes to things like free speech. I view the Bill of Rights as a moral compass on which the all of government should function. It is not clear to me how that happened in the case. I ascribe to the "trust but verify" line of thinking in these kinds of matters.

philip964 wrote:

thenick_ttu wrote:

gigag04 wrote:My advice to te officer and the woman, is to pick your battles carefully.

I have some what been supportive of this lady, sticking to her convictions, going to jail in support of the first amendment, etc. However.

On the other hand, making a police officer's job harder is really not in her best interest. Serve and Protect. Today that officer was making a little revenue for the city, which keeps her taxes low, but he was also keeping the traffic from being out of control. Without the police writing a few tickets everyday, traffic would probably go insane. Nobody likes traffic tickets, but it makes us all better drivers, whether we like it or not.

No doubt this same lady, hearing a strange noise at night, will be the first to call 911 to come out and investigate, probably at no time seeing the irony of how she picks her battles.

Ouch, that was a REALLY SORE NERVE that you touched. My personal opinion is that speed traps sole purpose is revenue. As usual, anytime you mess with government revenue, you can be assured to pay the the maximum penalty. To wit: the speeders get a fine and the lady goes to jail. Hardly seems fair.

I'd like to see a show of hands of those for whom the fine for speeding is really a deterrent. I'm raising my hand and I suspect that perhaps 20% of the population who are equally cheapskate motivated will do the same. For most others, speeding tickets are simply the "price of doing business." OK, if you get 20 in a week, that could be a drag but there are a lot of people out there who are speeding, some of them significantly (20+ over the posted limit) who do not appear to dissuaded from the practice of speeding by an occasional fine. I promise you that I don't feel any safer when I drive through a speed trap. In most cases, it isn't a quarter of a mile down the road when the traffic speed is back up to "normal", usually averaging 5-15mph over the signs. So I highly question the value to public safety from speed traps. If equal enforcement were given to tail-gaiting and swerving among lanes, etc. that really cause accidents, I would be much more impressed.

IMHO, traffic is already insane some places. Somehow, the level of enforcement in those areas doesn't measure up to the enforcement in other areas where it is easier to issue citations. I fully realize that the individual LEOs are following the work direction given to them so it is not their option to pick where they patrol. It can only be PD decisions.

Keith B wrote:This has now made national news. Looking at the roadway, I can't see that she would have been standing in the roadway. However, hopefully there is dashcam video to show she wasn't. HPD is refusing to comment, so sounds like this may be a case where she will end up riding a new Cannondale Evo instead of that old beater she was riding.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/speed-trap- ... 00521.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If she was railroaded on this as it appears, I hope that she does end up with a new ride courtesy of the good people of Houston. I want to give LE the benefit of the doubt but if she truly wasn't doing anything more than holding up that make shift sign, HPD needs to have an officer or two less. I have no truck with the abuse of power and trumping up a charge for standing in the roadway (assuming she wasn't) is just that.

As always, the news story might only have a portion of the facts. I hope, for the sake of the HPD, there is a lot more documented than we've seen.

Keith B wrote:Don't disagree Bill, but it goes to show that if a cop knows the laws, there is probably something you can use to cite someone on if you want to.

But isn't the "walking on the roadway when there is an existing sidewalk" the equivalent of J walking (crossing the street at other than a corner) and subject to a fine, not jail time? It is the trip with the connected bracelets that has me puzzled in this case. I didn't think that this kind of a misdemeanor could be used to take you to jail.