TexasCHLforum.com

Panda wrote:

EEllis wrote: We don't know that they did anything outside of policy or what they always did when conducting arrests. You don't blame the bottom rank because you dislike their policies.

I thought "just following orders" was discredited as a defense before I was born.

It was.

Well, it was discredited 65+ years ago. I don't know when you were born...

Cedar Park Dad wrote:If you draw a gun in my vicinity I'd consider it aimed. If you weren't a cop and you drew a firearm on my family (but not aimed) you'd be very very dead.

Note: I am in no way condoning or recommending in any way acting in a seflf defense mode with police. Thats what "I refuse all consent" and the lawyer is for.

Yeah but the law doesn't and you might well say the same thing if someone was in the process of running down someone in your family so.........

Panda wrote:

EEllis wrote: We don't know that they did anything outside of policy or what they always did when conducting arrests. You don't blame the bottom rank because you dislike their policies.

I thought "just following orders" was discredited as a defense before I was born.

If following orders breaks the law but that really isn't the case here now is it.

It wasn't the case back then either. Those who forget history are destined to repeat it.

EEllis wrote:

Panda wrote:

EEllis wrote: We don't know that they did anything outside of policy or what they always did when conducting arrests. You don't blame the bottom rank because you dislike their policies.

I thought "just following orders" was discredited as a defense before I was born.

If following orders breaks the law but that really isn't the case here now is it.

According to you and the Alcohol department No,,, according to a Jury or the public they serve.. yet to be determined.

How did we Americans get here in the first place where the Law has been turned upside down? I believe that if a group of citizens acted in this same manner they would be facing many charges. An officer of the Law should face the same charges. A badge does not give one the right to violate the Law. Our Constitution was written by better men and forbids it.

So how does the State have the right to do these things to the individual if the basis of Law is from the individual right of Self Defense, Liberty, and Property? It does not, unless we let it and we have done nothing to stop this perversion of Justice for decades so it has grown. I think people are waking up and are getting a bit tired of the Police State run by politicians...

EEllis wrote:

talltex wrote:

EEllis wrote:These stories were based of a press release done up by the girls lawyer. One source, and only one, I saw actually called VABC to get their side and none did any real investigation. That VABC made, or will make, changes is great but in no way impacts anything I said. Mind you they could think their policies are just fine but someone is just trying to get the press off their back so your conclusion that it proves something is thin. Even so if you actually bother to look at what I say I never approve, support or in any way condone any policy or tactics that VABC has or uses. I just think that so far no one has even tried to say that any of the agents have broken or violated any law, policy or anything else so to call for these extreme responses is unwarranted.

Oh and if you don't think this story came from a press release how do you think it came about?

EEllis, you are always critical of opinions given that cannot be supported by documented sources...where did you see a disclosure citing the girl's attorney as the source? Maybe it was just investigative journalism. Regardless of the source, the DA's office stated that girl's version was "factually consistent" with what occurred. As for no one claiming the agents broke or violated any law...well, NEITHER DID THE GIRLS before they were subjected to an "over the top" assault by 7 agents when they had done NOTHING wrong. One of the agents DID jump on the hood of the car...at least one of them WAS beating on the windows...at least one of them DID have a gun pointed at the girls. The resisting/fleeing/assault charges were a poor attempt at CYA after the fact (that's purely my opinion).

You might be right that it wasn't a press release. It appears the reporter who "broke" the story has the courthouse beat and so she may just of read the pleadings.The statement the defence attorney filed with the court much better and unbiased. Mind you I don't say a bit of it is incorrect just that it is not evidence of what is claimed or enough for the actions that seem so urgent to some of those here.
....

You repeated the claim that this story came from a press release at least 6 times that I recall. Not once did you cite a source or provide a link, yet used the statement to the detriment of others.

Let me show you how easy it is to state something that on the surface sounds reasonable, but has no confirmable source. It has been reported by many that agents of the Department of Homeland Security are now joining, monitoring, and interacting in popular online forums while participating in a new program to identify and categorize civilians who may be a future threat to national security. These agents have been granted latitude in normal procedures in order to better perform the necessary job of protecting Americans.

There, see how easy that is to present something as if it were fact, something that on the surface sounds quite believable, yet with scrutiny is found to be without source.

That said, I still support LEOs and admire the fortitude you have displayed over 13 pages. As for the topic, I am glad no one was seriously hurt or killed. It was a strange turn of events.

sugar land dave wrote:You repeated the claim that this story came from a press release at least 6 times that I recall. Not once did you cite a source or provide a link, yet used the statement to the detriment of others.

Yes, he has, and now I simply have to insist that a cite be provided to verify this claim. Otherwise it is false. Without proof, it's simply a device to attempt to preclude discussion.

Or scare others into believing in something as fact (that isn't) to support an agenda. It seems to be popular on both side of our political system. Someone told the government that we're all a bunch of sheep.

-BAA!

baldeagle wrote:

sugar land dave wrote:You repeated the claim that this story came from a press release at least 6 times that I recall. Not once did you cite a source or provide a link, yet used the statement to the detriment of others.

Yes, he has, and now I simply have to insist that a cite be provided to verify this claim. Otherwise it is false. Without proof, it's simply a device to attempt to preclude discussion.

I understand, but I do want to make it clear that I admire his tenacity and energy in posting. I wish I had one tenth of that.

sugar land dave wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

sugar land dave wrote:You repeated the claim that this story came from a press release at least 6 times that I recall. Not once did you cite a source or provide a link, yet used the statement to the detriment of others.

Yes, he has, and now I simply have to insist that a cite be provided to verify this claim. Otherwise it is false. Without proof, it's simply a device to attempt to preclude discussion.

I understand, but I do want to make it clear that I admire his tenacity and energy in posting. I wish I had one tenth of that.

But in the end, is the approach beneficial?

I propose different measurements based on a couple of principals.

1. Like medicine, the goal of police work should be to deal with the malignancies of society by the least invasive means possible. This is the mastectomy versus lumpectomy view point. We would not tolerate a doctor who's post surgical speech started with. "while I was taking out your gall bladder, your intestine got in the way so I removed it, too." How about a biopsy where the surgeon says "while I was in there, your lung didn't look quite right so I took it out." Won't you want some verification that the outcome was the least invasive possible?

2. Society is best serviced by professions which are self-regulating. As a laymen, I'm never going to understand that Aunt Patsy's hepatic artery was erroneously ligated during her gall bladder surgery. I need to doctor to explain what happened and what can be done to prevent re-occurrence. We have those mechanisms in place in the form of surgical review boards, coroner's inquests and in LE, Internal Affairs.

But the tendency is for the professionals to close ranks in the face of criticism. For any group to be self-regulating, there has to be a feed-back loop. I don't need to understand how it happened to know, at a gross level, that Aunt Patsy went into for gall bladder surgery and now she is dead. Someone had better figure out why. There is a Boeing 777 laying in pieces at SFO and there was a reason. A wounded veteran was stripped of his uniform in order to board an airplane because his wound wouldn't let him raise his arm to normal height. These are all cries for process correction. The professionals need to deal with them.

Our military is a good example of the minimally invasive regulation. Gone are the Viet Nam era carpet bombing techniques and they have been replaced by laser guided munitions and drones. The idea is to deal with the BGs without damaging the surrounding population. This is very hard when the BGs always surround themselves with human shields. At the cost of the lives of our soldiers, great strides are taken to avoid coll atrial damage.

I don't see this ABC situation in a vacuum. For me, it is another example of the Boston bomber chase tactics and, to some extent, the recent spate of police shootings of dogs. Again, I'm a big supporter of law enforcement and recognize their value and service to all of us. But if they are held beyond reproach, regardless of what they do, the feedback loop and the correction mechanisms will never work. The Boston bombing suspect was caught, but not by the Constitutional violations but by help from some of the various citizens who were violated. Just because you CAN do something legally, does not mean that you SHOULD do it. Does it pass the "this is the only way" test?

We should continuously examine police outcomes with our "minimally invasive" glasses on. For me, it is a great disservice to the vast majority of hardworking, dedicated police professionals to allow a few and sometimes isolated events to taint their service.

Follow up story:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/01/girl- ... taxpayers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;?

Everybody around here (local) is pretty annoyed at the tone of the press release. But at least it is over with.