Page 1 of 3
Re: wrongful arrest
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 1:03 pm
by The Annoyed Man
george wrote:An old time peace officer in Houston told me Texas used to have something called a "wrongful arrest" statute.
Could someone please tell me if the statute still exists, and what it means?
Also, I think there is a law that says the army cannot be used for civil law enforcement. If that is the case, how did the FBI get the army involved in the deal at Waco? Not stirring the pot, just wondering.
First question: I have no idea.
Second question: The FBI isn't the Army. The FBI is a civilian agency. At Waco, the FBI was sent in by former AG Janet Reno......the same AG who sent the FBI into Ruby Ridge. Now, I think that David Koresh was a spiritually deceived cult leader, and there was probably a lot of junk going on there. But there was clearly a violation of their civil rights in the matter. At Ruby Ridge, that fellow was a no saint and a bigot, but an FBI sniper shot his wife in the head for the offense of holding their baby in her arms. It lends new meaning to "We're from the government, and we're here to help you."
I'd rather be ignored, thank you.
Re: wrongful arrest
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 1:07 pm
by C-dub
The Army was not at Waco. That was all FBI.
Re: wrongful arrest
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 1:22 pm
by threoh8
There was some Army involvement at Waco. There were some observers, and Army National Guard equipment was used by the FBI during the siege and the action on the last day.
The pretext for use of Army equipment was a rumor of some kind of drug infraction in the compound. The vehicles were transported to the site from North Fort Hood by a Regular Army transportation unit, escorted by MP's and Texas DPS troopers.
Also, the FBI trained teams at the MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain) site on Fort Hood, with military assistance.
Re: wrongful arrest
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 1:23 pm
by baldeagle
I would think this would apply to LEOs just like any other citizen.
PENAL CODE
TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON
CHAPTER 20. KIDNAPPING AND UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT
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.
The fact that's it's not an offense to detain or move a person
for the purpose of effecting a lawful offense means that it
is an offense when the arrest is not lawful.
Re: wrongful arrest
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 1:33 pm
by i8godzilla
There was Army equipment used at the Branch Dividian complex. IIRC they used a few military helicopters as a distraction that took fire from the complex--the helicopters did not return fire. There were also military armored combat engineering vehicles used. To the best of my knowledge who drove the the vehicles was never disclosed. However, the Army helicopters were piloted by military personal.
Re: wrongful arrest
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 1:43 pm
by v-rog
I recall a Bradley Fighting Vehicle being used in Waco...don't tell me that the FBI trained on that
Re: wrongful arrest
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 3:43 pm
by ddurkof
The situation in Waco the BATF suggested that Koresh was dealing in narcotics which was the Federal nexus to use National Guard personnel and equipment. This was a lie or false.
At Ruby Ridge the "Rules of Engagement" were illegally changed by the FBI on the way at there. Weaver was asked several times to cut off the barrel of a shotgun by an informant and when he finally did it, the Feds filed charges against him. The feds sought him out to become an informant. He decided not to and a court date was set. He didn't show up and a warrant was issued for his arrest. IIRC they set up around his cabin to watch him to make the arrest. His dog and his son went out and when the dog alerted the agent shot the dog. The son shot back and was killed.
There was a stand off and the cabin was surrounded, the FBI was called in and during the course of the standoff the FBI sniper shot at Weaver, missed, and killed his wife who was standing behind him. At that point in time there was no threat from Weaver. Weaver ended up being acquitted and then won a civil suit against the US Government.
Both cases were a failure for the government. There has been much written about both situations.
Re: wrongful arrest
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 4:01 pm
by b322da
george wrote:I think there is a law that says the army cannot be used for civil law enforcement. If that is the case, how did the FBI get the army involved in the deal at Waco? Not stirring the pot, just wondering.
I think you are referring to the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C 1385. It applies to all five federal military services now save one, the U. S. Coast Guard, and it does not apply to the National Guard. This once clear statute, enacted following the Civil War, has been greatly eroded through time by opinions of mainly government lawyers and the courts themselves, in the opinion of many, in any event.
A pretty good explanation of what the act means today, if anything, can be found here:
http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal ... ilcock.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So much for governing your affairs by reading the clear wording of a law. Ever wonder why there are so many lawyers doing such a great job in the Congress nowadays?
Elmo
Re: wrongful arrest
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 4:30 pm
by gigag04
Shots were fired at FBI personell in a helicopter at Ruby Ridge. The FBI's HRT was called in to both areas because BATF agents drew fire and screwed up their initial contact (Waco and Ruby Ridge).
Weaver and his sons fired at federal personell on the ground. They used their female family members as shields and holed for a fight.
This info is based on first hand stories from HRT guys that were there.
Re: wrongful arrest
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 4:50 pm
by b322da
gigag04 wrote:Shots were fired at FBI personell in a helicopter at Ruby Ridge. The FBI's HRT was called in to both areas because BATF agents drew fire and screwed up their initial contact (Waco and Ruby Ridge).
Weaver and his sons fired at federal personell on the ground. They used their female family members as shields and holed for a fight.
This info is based on first hand stories from HRT guys that were there.
That's the way I heard it from both sensible commentators and some on scene, too, Aggie. The debate has become no longer one on law enforcement, but has become politically charged and minds on both sides tend to be closed. Be prepared for an onslaught of "reliable" contemporary quotes from the other side.
Was there a Fox News then? I guess the other question is whether there will be a Fox News when the Brits and Washington finish with Murdoch.
Elmo
Re: wrongful arrest
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 6:15 pm
by paulhailes
I must have missed something what happened in Waco? and when?
Re: wrongful arrest
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 6:17 pm
by Keith B
paulhailes wrote:I must have missed something what happened in Waco? and when?
They're talking about the Branch Davidian compound raid in 1983
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: wrongful arrest
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 6:20 pm
by paulhailes
Keith B wrote:paulhailes wrote:I must have missed something what happened in Waco? and when?
They're talking about the Branch Davidian compound raid in 1983
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ah thanks, before my time.
Re: wrongful arrest
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 6:40 pm
by The Annoyed Man
gigag04 wrote:Shots were fired at FBI personell in a helicopter at Ruby Ridge. The FBI's HRT was called in to both areas because BATF agents drew fire and screwed up their initial contact (Waco and Ruby Ridge).
Weaver and his sons fired at federal personell on the ground. They used their female family members as shields and holed for a fight.
This info is based on first hand stories from HRT guys that were there.
Who, of course, tell the HRT side of the story. How did they explain illegally changing the ROE, and how did they explain the findings at trial? I'm not trying to impugn the reputation of HRT. I'm sure that they are like all other LEOs—for the most part good and honorable men and women who seek to do a difficult job as well as they possibly can. And like I said above, Randy Weaver was a racist pig. But even unsympathetic racist pigs, ironically, have rights, and once in a while you do get rogue cops who take liberty with the truth. It seems to me that Weaver's attorney was able to successfully demonstrate at trial that his client's rights had been violated, and the court found that to be true. Weaver's settlement award entirely depended on the truth or falsehood of those allegations, as proven at trial. So how do your friends at HRT square their version with the findings at trial?