TexasCHLforum.com

Has made the British newspapers of the second incident.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... olicy.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... cmpid=hpbn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Female officer reinstated after grand jury fails to indite.

ETA: They settled for $185K. Criminal prosecution under way for the female officer.

Well they paid the victims and put them back on the road.

philip964 wrote:http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... cmpid=hpbn

Female officer reinstated after grand jury fails to indite.

The grand jury refused to indict the female trooper and she was just rehired by DPS. The rationale is that she was a rookie following the orders of a senior Trooper. The Trooper who ordered her to conduct the search was just fired.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

philip964 wrote:http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... cmpid=hpbn

Female officer reinstated after grand jury fails to indite.

The grand jury refused to indict the female trooper and she was just rehired by DPS. The rationale is that she was a rookie following the orders of a senior Trooper. The Trooper who ordered her to conduct the search was just fired.

Chas.

I'm not saying I agree with it, but I can understand their reason for not indicting her. But why was she rehired? IIRC, she didn't even question the order and that makes me question whether or not she has the good judgment required* to be a state trooper.

*Well, "good judgment" should be required, anyway... It is in my book, regardless of if it's in the DPS's.

Nice....so they can digitally rape citizens and no one goes to jail? Gives me great confidence.

"The Trooper who ordered her to conduct the search was just fired."

Not prosecuted - just fired?

They should BOTH be serving time.

When I was in the Army they taught us that we could refuse to follow an unlawful order per the UCMJ.

I was only following orders excuse is no defense...she could of refused to follow such an obvious unlawful order, but she didn't.

philip964 wrote:http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... cmpid=hpbn

Female officer reinstated after grand jury fails to indite.

I am thinking of all the negative posts I have read on the net about this and negative comments in general about leo's because of this incident. If the jury declines to indict her that is their choice. They did not feel it warranted the charges the state tried to file. As in other cases, people have to accept that just like some had to accept GZ's verdict because that is our system. She received a 60 day fine which is pretty steep.

McCraw said Friday that Bui will be suspended for 60 days and undergo additional training. He added that he was requiring all state police officers to re-familiarize themselves with the department policy on strip searches and body cavity searches.

texanjoker wrote:

philip964 wrote:http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... cmpid=hpbn

Female officer reinstated after grand jury fails to indite.

I am thinking of all the negative posts I have read on the net about this and negative comments in general about leo's because of this incident. If the jury declines to indict her that is their choice. They did not feel it warranted the charges the state tried to file. As in other cases, people have to accept that just like some had to accept GZ's verdict because that is our system. She received a 60 day fine which is pretty steep.

McCraw said Friday that Bui will be suspended for 60 days and undergo additional training. He added that he was requiring all state police officers to re-familiarize themselves with the department policy on strip searches and body cavity searches.

That may be a steep fine, but that is nothing compared to what those two girls got at her hands. She is very fortunate.

Should the penalty be sixty days wages for anyone that commits sexual molestation?

mojo84 wrote:Should the penalty be sixty days wages for anyone that commits sexual molestation?

At a minimum, we should garnish 50% of their wages until they pay back the settlement their victims got from the taxpayers.

I fully expected an outcome like this and I would bet a box of 9mm that the fired trooper will get his job back after his union/civil service arbitration hearing.

Like others have said, all LEO's need to think about the Constitutionality of their actions and refuse to commit unlawful acts, if in fact this was standard procedure of the State to Rape female citizens. Being a rookie is no excuse for raping a Citizen.

Acts like this foster an "us" versus "them" mentality. I wonder if the fired LEO would have a problem with someone doing this to his wife or daughter. I wonder if the rookie would mind someone doing this to her...

mojo84 wrote:Should the penalty be sixty days wages for anyone that commits sexual molestation?

According to the grand jury she did not meet the elements of committing sexual molestation .... that is our system. Personally I have issue with the fact that she did that type of search regardless if she was told to or not. If it is illegal or violates policy you say no. Now I can see if she was a rookie she might have been scared too, but then she could have gone to a supervisor. For all we know she might have as we are not privy to the internal investigation. There is no policy that states you have to refuse an unlawful order. Had they used some common sense and wanted her prosecuted there would have been more applicable charges. Instead, like the GZ case, they went on public emotion and they tried to file charges they could not prove. I am sure the other fired trooper will state he did not tell her to do the cavity search. He might have he might not have. Again we are not privy to the full internal investigation.