Arlington Tx Officer seizes CHL holders gun

[tomtexan]

One could argue that being intentionally blocked in constitutes a form of false imprisonment.

False imprisonment?
Naw.
They could have exited the motor vehicle and walked away at anytime.

[mojo84]

Most of these situations come down to a matter of perspective.

[EEllis]

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.

[EEllis]

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?

[A-R]

For those who like to read the letter of the law:

Sec. 20.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "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. Restraint is "without consent" if it is accomplished by:
(A) force, intimidation, or deception; or
(B) any means, including acquiescence of the victim, if:
(i) the victim is a child who is less than 14 years of age or an incompetent person and the parent, guardian, or person or institution acting in loco parentis has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement; or
(ii) the victim is a child who is 14 years of age or older and younger than 17 years of age, the victim is taken outside of the state and outside a 120-mile radius from the victim's residence, and the parent, guardian, or person or institution acting in loco parentis has not acquiesced in the movement.
(2) "Abduct" means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by:
(A) secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found; or
(B) using or threatening to use deadly force.
(3) "Relative" means a parent or stepparent, ancestor, sibling, or uncle or aunt, including an adoptive relative of the same degree through marriage or adoption.
(4) "Person" means an individual, corporation, or association.
(5) Notwithstanding Section 1.07, "individual" means a human being who has been born and is alive.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 790, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 822, Sec. 2.03, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.


Sec. 20.02. UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly restrains another person.
(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the person restrained was a child younger than 14 years of age;
(2) the actor was a relative of the child; and
(3) the actor's sole intent was to assume lawful control of the child.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is:
(1) a state jail felony if the person restrained was a child younger than 17 years of age; or
(2) a felony of the third degree if:
(A) the actor recklessly exposes the victim to a substantial risk of serious bodily injury;
(B) the actor restrains an individual the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public servant; or
(C) the actor while in custody restrains any other person.
(d) It is no offense to detain or move another under this section when it is for the purpose of effecting a lawful arrest or detaining an individual lawfully arrested.
(e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the person restrained was a child who is 14 years of age or older and younger than 17 years of age;
(2) the actor does not restrain the child by force, intimidation, or deception; and
(3) the actor is not more than three years older than the child.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 707, Sec. 1(b), 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 790, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 524, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

[SewTexas]

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)

[EEllis]

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.

[EEllis]

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.

[SewTexas]

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.

[EEllis]

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.

[Wes]

As to what crime she committed I bet there could be several

[G.A. Heath]

I will say poor choices made by all parties. But lets look at it this way, You come out of a business to find your vehicle blocked in and another party confronting you about a crime you have not committed. What do you do? I can promise you there is a lot of potential for it to go real bad real fast in a very real manner.

Now place yourself in the mindset of a criminal and play the scenario with it being for a crime you have committed.

[jmra]

I will say poor choices made by all parties. But lets look at it this way, You come out of a business to find your vehicle blocked in and another party confronting you about a crime you have not committed. What do you do? I can promise you there is a lot of potential for it to go real bad real fast in a very real manner.

Now place yourself in the mindset of a criminal and play the scenario with it being for a crime you have committed.

I will answer the questions but I believe them to be hypothetical and loosely based on the facts of the case being discussed as there has been no evidence (dash cam video or witness statements) presented to suggest that the woman physically blocked the vehicle with her own vehicle.
"You come out of a business to find your vehicle blocked in and another party confronting you about a crime you have not committed."
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.

"Now place yourself in the mindset of a criminal and play the scenario with it being for a crime you have committed."
We don't have to play what if here. The people waited for the police to arrive and were arrested. End of story.

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.

[jmra]

I would like to know what really happened and don't form an opinion on one news story. The article states she pulled in behind the car and called 911. She said she was holding her hand up asking them to hold on. Was she asking or demanding with their car blocked in? Did she tell them she was armed? I would like to hear the 911 recording. Was she calm, excited, out of control? If there is dash cam audio or video I would also like to see that. It could show both of their state of mind. Were there prior incidents over the past few weeks of her blocking in red cars?

According to an email from Tiarra Richard, Arlington police spokeswoman, Hill seized the gun after “speaking with Ms. Pickens and learning more about her actions that included attempting to block in the other vehicle.”

I would like to see under what authority he seized the gun. It is not normal to just seize anybody's property and that is covered under the 4th amendment. The IA will be confidential unless they appeal it to a court or civil service commission. If he is found to have violated a policy and/or law he could be disciplined and/or fired depending on what he did wrong. She is free to file a civil suit alleging a 4th amendment violation of search and seizure.

Pickens pulled in behind the car and called 911. When two men and one woman emerged from the store and got into the car to leave, the woman said she didn’t confront them but only held her hand up, asking them repeatedly to “hold on.”

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/05/22 ... rylink=cpy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/05/22 ... t-gun.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;[/quote]

Would also like to know if there was anything preventing the car from pulling forward to leave. Just because you pull up behind someone doesn't mean you have blocked them in.

[jmra]

People lie in complaints about the police all the time and audio/video then clears the officer.

I assume by "all the time" you meant "often" as "all the time" is factually incorrect. We know that there a many instances where LEO have been caught making false statements in their reports, ironically by audio/video. I'm sure there are many more that we aren't aware of, but it would be incorrect for me to say that LEO lie in their reports "all the time".