What would you do?

[WildBill]

Crimes only happen if LEOs see them.

Where is the line of demarcation for LEO's to have to witness a crime? I'm sure they don't have to witness a murder to prosecute it.

If you want to wade through this, it explains some of your question.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/criminal-pr ... 03.00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[aaangel]

watched it again..... i think this whole thing started because the guy getting clobbered was "grinding" her in the club.
well, you get what you ask for. now i know why the girlfriend was holding him down.

[chasfm11]

Hmmm. Wherever your current DA is from, he needs to go back and y'all find a real one.

Unfortunately, he is the same one who was involved in the case of a nurse (CHL) carrying into a hospital. They eventually dropped those charges, too, I believe.

I suspect that his prosecutions have some political agenda to them.

P.S. This is from a neighboring town, not mine. Fortunately, I've not had a "opportunity" to figure out who our DA is. I really want to keep it that way.

[TxKimberMan]

Crimes only happen if LEOs see them.

Where is the line of demarcation for LEO's to have to witness a crime? I'm sure they don't have to witness a murder to prosecute it.

If you want to wade through this, it explains some of your question.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/criminal-pr ... 03.00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks WildBill, that's a great link!

However, I still believe that the police could take action against the people in the video. I am in the commercial real estate business. One of our medical office buildings was burglarized and the suspects were caught on video tape, the police (Dallas) stated that if the faces of the suspects caught on video were identifiable, they could arrest. Unfortunately, you could not see the burglars faces on the video.

In this fight video, since everyone has been identified, what's the problem? When the police watch the video, they are witnessing the crime. IANAL, etc., but seems common sense to me.

[srothstein]

Crimes only happen if LEOs see them.

Where is the line of demarcation for LEO's to have to witness a crime? I'm sure they don't have to witness a murder to prosecute it.

There are two different things to consider. One is what action the officer may take immediately while the other is what action he may take later.

The link that was posted shows when an officer may arrest for a crime. The important part to note is that may does not equal shall. All arrests in Texas except for one (violation of a protective order) are discretionary for police. They may arrest for crimes committed in their presence or view. Note that this does not mean they need to see the crime, as they can detect it some other way. An officer may arrest if he hears a shot or if a crime occurs behind his back, for example.

So, what a police officer may do immediately is arrest in some cases and only in those cases. But there is nothing that stops an officer from investigating any crime, recovering the evidence, and filing a charge later on. Then, when the DA takes the case to a judge (well, the officer can do so also but usually the DA does it) or grand jury, a warrant is issued if there is enough evidence. Any police officer may then go arrest the suspect based on the warrant (with the appropriate restrictions for arresting with a warrant). This is how most murders get solved, as well as those cold cases we all read about. You know what I mean, cases that may be 20 or 30 years old. An officer can always collect evidence and file charges in case of real crimes.

[C-dub]

I came across this again and was thinking about something, so I went and read the article. None of the people in the video have filed a complaint against the other. That's why the police can't just go ahead and arrest or charge anyone. If it were a felony or a higher level crime than simple assault things would be different.