TexasCHLforum.com

Redneck_Buddha wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

Abraham wrote:Just being fired isn't justice for those they preyed upon.

They weren't just fired, they are being prosecuted...

I seem to be in the minority, but I'm a little uncomfortable with both the firing and the prosecution. To me it looked like they were following an established policy. It's hard to believe they did something like this without command approval in one form or another. If so, their punishment, if any, should be light in comparison to whomever made the policy.

Weren't they originally cleared by the Texas Rangers? I want to hear the names of the public servants who originally excused them without disciplinary action and see some accountability.

I don't remember, but if so, that is more evidence they were following an established policy, and again, if so, then those policy makers need to be the ones who draw the most severe punishment.

texanjoker wrote:

Abraham wrote:Just being fired isn't justice for those they preyed upon.

They weren't just fired, they are being prosecuted...

I seem to be in the minority, but I'm a little uncomfortable with both the firing and the prosecution. To me it looked like they were following an established policy. It's hard to believe they did something like this without command approval in one form or another. If so, their punishment, if any, should be light in comparison to whomever made the policy.

i8godzilla wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

PUCKER wrote:To me, it appears that this TX DPS "occifer" (purposely typed this way) is setting herself up in a very bad way...if this not a case of sexual assault/aggravated sexual assault, I do not know what is.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

To me it seems like the officers involved are not doing something out of the ordinary but following established policy. The female officer obviously believes she is acting in accordance with policy because she deliberately conducts the search on camera. I don't know what the policy is or what their orders are, so it's difficult to know for sure whether the officers even used bad personal judgement. If these officers were following policy, it is the policy makers who need to be held to account, not the officers. Whether in the military or law enforcement, I'm sick and tired of the people in the front-line being held accountable for actions they'd never have taken without the consent, orders, or approval from those in charge. Punishment needs to flow upwards when those at the bottom are following policies and orders from those above them. The most severe punishment should be for those who gave the orders or created the policy --and many times those implementing these policies should get a pass.

If it is wrong it is wrong. I don't care if it is policy or not. Following illegal orders does not give the the officer a pass. The Nuremberg Defense did not fly in 1945 and does not now. Those that committed this sexual assault and those that created the policy share the same guilt.

If you read my later comment to mamabear I clarified my remarks saying that I'm not arguing that the implementers get a pass (depending on the particular circumstances), but that if the implementer gets five years in prison, then the guy who created the policy should get twenty. Following orders may not be an excuse, but the greater evil is perpetrated by those who give the orders, not those who carry them out. You mentioned Nuremberg.....the same evil was not shared. The ones who gave the orders that resulted in 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 or 8,000,000 Jews killed perpetrated a greater evil that the soldier who killed 1, 10, or 100 following orders from a totalitarian regime. They all did their part, but some had bigger roles than others.

mamabearCali wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

PUCKER wrote:To me, it appears that this TX DPS "occifer" (purposely typed this way) is setting herself up in a very bad way...if this not a case of sexual assault/aggravated sexual assault, I do not know what is.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

To me it seems like the officers involved are not doing something out of the ordinary but following established policy. The female officer obviously believes she is acting in accordance with policy because she deliberately conducts the search on camera. I don't know what the policy is or what their orders are, so it's difficult to know for sure whether the officers even used bad personal judgement. If these officers were following policy, it is the policy makers who need to be held to account, not the officers. Whether in the military or law enforcement, I'm sick and tired of the people in the front-line being held accountable for actions they'd never have taken without the consent, orders, or approval from those in charge. Punishment needs to flow upwards when those at the bottom are following policies and orders from those above them. The most severe punishment should be for those who gave the orders or created the policy --and many times those implementing these policies should get a pass.

That is gets a big maybe. Look, I know better than to put my hands in another citizens orfices. If I did so I would be charged. The officer doing this is counting on getting a pass because "it's procedure".....know what, you are a human being too. If I am accountable to know when something is over the line so is she. Maybe another person said it was ok to do, but she did it. Sorry no pass here on this one. Additionally she is accoutable because she put these women in danger of infection and STD's by not changing gloves and following hygienic procedures. UNACCEPTABLE!

Note, I said that punishment needs to flow upwards and that many times those at the bottom should get a pass --and this should depend on the nature of the act. In this case, the search methodology alone merits punishment, because as you say, it was medically dangerous. However, I judge the person setting the policy to have perpetrated the greater evil for a number of reasons: 1) he is supposed to have greater knowledge and experience; 2) the policy he sets affects a greater number of people; 3) he has the greater responsibility both to the organization and to the public. I'm tired of seeing some private busted and sent to prison for a policy that he had nothing to do with. I'm not saying the privates should never be punished. What I am saying is that if a private gets 5 years in prison, the general or politician that made the policy should get 20 years. I don't know enough to judge what an appropriate punishment for the officers conducting the search would be here --but whatever happens to them should be visited four-fold on those that created the policy they were implementing.

PUCKER wrote:To me, it appears that this TX DPS "occifer" (purposely typed this way) is setting herself up in a very bad way...if this not a case of sexual assault/aggravated sexual assault, I do not know what is.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

To me it seems like the officers involved are not doing something out of the ordinary but following established policy. The female officer obviously believes she is acting in accordance with policy because she deliberately conducts the search on camera. I don't know what the policy is or what their orders are, so it's difficult to know for sure whether the officers even used bad personal judgement. If these officers were following policy, it is the policy makers who need to be held to account, not the officers. Whether in the military or law enforcement, I'm sick and tired of the people in the front-line being held accountable for actions they'd never have taken without the consent, orders, or approval from those in charge. Punishment needs to flow upwards when those at the bottom are following policies and orders from those above them. The most severe punishment should be for those who gave the orders or created the policy --and many times those implementing these policies should get a pass.

Abraham wrote:Forgive me if I'm being naive, as I couldn't get the video: Couldn't the folks searched refused the road side search and request they be taken to jail or another facility for the search - if indeed a cavity search was demanded? Or, was there no choice - do it willingly citizen or be forced to do it roadside?

Certainly, I understand the outrage if in fact a road side cavity search was illegally forced and performed. If so, the legal repercussions will be forthcoming with a thunderclap...

In the mean time, no need to paint ALL law enforcement as martial law enthusiasts in waiting...

C'mon folks, one bad apple doesn't... (if indeed that's the case)

I think one of the concerns here is that the procedure appears to be routine. The female officer tells the male officer that since his car his closer she wants to conduct the search in front of his vehicle so that it is recorded on his camera. The impression given is that the search is SOP and not at all unusual. Also, the method of the search is revolting, as the officer explores the body cavities of both women using the same pair of gloves. Geez, just using the same glove on one woman, if the first cavity is the "wrong" cavity, can cause an infection. Having searched both cavities then using the same gloves on the second woman definitely risks causing an infection in the second woman.

I think willingly or unwillingly is irrelevant. Under the circumstances what possible justification is there for a cavity search to begin with? No marijuana was found in the vehicle and there is not even a post facto justification that the search produced contraband. It's also not all that meaningful because most people are going to be intimated into doing just about whatever an officer demands, and furthermore, knowing they were innocent, may have felt like cooperation was going to be less a problem than refusing. Anyway, do you know the legality of such a search? I don't.

gigag04 wrote:

carlson1 wrote:When you give them an inch they take a mile. We allow them to have "power" they should never have been given. Citizens are treated as criminals. Disarm CHL's, search vehicles under the disguise of safety, keep you standing on the side of the road for hours waiting on the "drug dog" because you stood up for your rights and refused a search, now body cavity searches because they think they smell marijuana etc. . . etc. . .

The officer's word is LAW.

Who is "them"? A handful of the +/- 75,000 peace officers in Texas?

I understand you were a former officer at one point, and a mod on this board, both of which I respect. With that, I am having a hard time reading words like "they think they smell marijuana" and not taking them personal. As someone who frequently deals with the stuff roadside, it is an easy odor to identify. Your comment seems to call into question the integrity of what I am doing. The behavior you list compiles isolated incidents that are exceptions not the rule as to how LE in TX interact withe public. With cameras on the officers lapels coming out now, and dash cameras, this is one of the most monitored professions I can think.

If I were to make a blanket post on this board making sweeping statements lumping all CHL holders on gun enthusiasts into one group and make broad statements, I wager that the post would be moved to the invisible mod forum, and I would be sent a nasty PM.

Though offended, I think mostly I am disappointed with the content of this post.

Smelling marijuana certainly justifies a search of the vehicle. And if the officer thought the driver was under the influence, maybe a blood test or urine test? What I don't get is the cavity search. Seems unlikely to me they were going to make a big marijuana bust off it. Just what did they hope to find, a joint, an ounce of marijuana? This justifies a cavity search alongside the road? Police resources are so abundant that the possibility of a personal use marijuana bust justifies the attention of two officers, two vehicles, and cavity searches?

anygunanywhere wrote:If this is true then this needs to be eliminated.

Pity the poor soul that ever tries to give me or Mrs. Anygun a roadside finger wave.

Anygunanywhere

Did you listen to the whole thing? If you watch the video it shows the search, so there is no doubt it happened. The audio is very clear throughout. At the end of the video you can hear one of the women very calmly complaining about her treatment and where the officer put her fingers ---can't really repeat it here. I doubt I could have remained that calm.I know my wife wouldn't have been that calm. I can't honestly say what I'd have done in that situation if they had treated my wife like that.