February 25, 201412 yr How do you know she didn't see them? How do you know she was grabbed roughly? Eyewitness accounts that she was grabbed roughly from behind in multiple articles?
February 25, 201412 yr We were taking photos of some Spec Operations aircraft on display just inside the gate at a military installation, we were on the outside of the gate and sitting in our car. MP came up and said that the gate area could not be photographed for security reasons and asked that we delete the photos and asked that we show him that the photo's were removed. Many I guess would lose their mind over this, but I understood that while he may not have had any grounds to ask us to erase the photo's since we were in our cars in an unrestricted drive to the gate I didn't have any problems with the request either. There are several rights that I will fight tooth and nail over, but not wanting to show my ID to an officer of the law isn't one of them.
February 25, 201412 yr Eyewitness accounts that she was grabbed roughly from behind in multiple articles? Been to court several times, the worst and easiest defeated evidence is "Eye Witness". If they don't have a camera you'd be shocked how much people mis-remember. People in a lot of cases see what they want to see. One of the biggest misses on eye witness accounts of something is the initial action, because they weren't watching it as close to begin with and the second thing is the time line of how stuff goes down. "He walked right up and slapped him" for instance as a witness statement, in reality they were face to face for several moments or even minutes before the slap, but to the witness he walked right up and did it. That's why people aren't convicted solely on Eye Witness testimony as much any more, if there is no other corroborating evidence.
February 25, 201412 yr Eyewitness accounts that she was grabbed roughly from behind in multiple articles? And you have the police chief who says he didn't buy that she couldn't hear or see them. So again, how do you know?
February 25, 201412 yr Been to court several times, the worst and easiest defeated evidence is "Eye Witness". If they don't have a camera you'd be shocked how much people mis-remember. People in a lot of cases see what they want to see. One of the biggest misses on eye witness accounts of something is the initial action, because they weren't watching it as close to begin with and the second thing is the time line of how stuff goes down. "He walked right up and slapped him" for instance as a witness statement, in reality they were face to face for several moments or even minutes before the slap, but to the witness he walked right up and did it. That's why people aren't convicted solely on Eye Witness testimony as much any more, if there is no other corroborating evidence. I understand that but according to the article multiple people saw it. I don't buy for a minute that she simply disregarded the officers continued running then pulled away from them and then was only charged with failure to provide ID and jaywalking. I think it went down exactly the way I posted a page or two back: She wasn't paying attention and kept jogging, a frustrated officer had to jog after her and instead of tapping her on the shoulder or getting up beside her grabbed her by the arm. She didn't see who was grabbing her by the arm and attempted to pull away. The officer felt her pull away and cuffed her. When she realized she was being cuffed she went limp and then blew up and continued to protest instead of giving the officers the information. I think this was a situation where a little bit of patience could have avoided the whole thing. She obviously wasn't combative enough to get an assault or resisting charge so why not let the situation die down?
February 25, 201412 yr And you have the police chief who says he didn't buy that she couldn't hear or see them. So again, how do you know? The chief said a lot of things in that interview, most of which he had to apologize for afterward. Besides, he wasn't there either was he? She had on headphones so it's very possible that she didn't hear them. It was a crowded area even if she saw the officers why would she think they were trying to stop her, she was just jogging? She obviously wasn't trying to get elude the officers or wasn't combative or she'd have been charged with more than jaywalking and refusal to provide ID. This could have been handled better initially by the officers and she could have reacted better after being startled. Like I said before, bad behavior on both sides.
February 25, 201412 yr The guy who posted the video has said himself he thought the girl handled the situation poorly, according to an article I read I also read they were bicycle police. So they probably didn't have to struggle to catch her. According to the article I read, the police contacted 28 people that day. Only 7 were cited and I believe this girl was the only one arrested.
February 25, 201412 yr It doesn't really matter who she is IMO. I know what you're saying, but it's not really a 'suspicious place' or high crime area where the officer should feel threatened just by virtue of being there or has more of a reason to say that they felt threatened. Regardless of how it should be, a jury in the area is going to hear about where she was and I'll give you two guesses about how it's going to come off. Different part of Austin, I'd be more willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. That's the reason I think twice about judging an officer for a split second decision in a really tough case. This, IMO, wasn't one of those though.
February 25, 201412 yr You might have a point if she was only charged with jaywalking. She wasn't. I looked at the failure to identify statute last night and cited that one as well. What would you like to bet she walks on that?
February 25, 201412 yr I know what you're saying' date=' but it's not really a 'suspicious place' or high crime area where the officer should feel threatened just by virtue of being there or has more of a reason to say that they felt threatened. Regardless of how it should be, a jury in the area is going to hear about where she was and I'll give you two guesses about how it's going to come off. Different part of Austin, I'd be more willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. That's the reason I think twice about judging an officer for a split second decision in a really tough case. This, IMO, wasn't one of those though.[/quote'] None of that matters. He has the authority to stop her and arrest her. They did that. They didn't assault her in any way. She might beat the charge, that's one thing. But that doesn't mean they did anything wrong. I don't think this was a split second decision. I think he grabbed her, she pulled away and yelled "don't touch me" and he handcuffed her to figure everything out. She was detained at that point regardless of whether or not he was going to arrest her he had the authority to handcuff her. At that point, apparently she failed to give him her information and an arrest was made. That's what I get from the story anyways.
February 25, 201412 yr The chief said a lot of things in that interview' date=' most of which he had to apologize for afterward. Besides, he wasn't there either was he? She had on headphones so it's very possible that she didn't hear them. It was a crowded area even if she saw the officers why would she think they were trying to stop her, she was just jogging? She obviously wasn't trying to get elude the officers or wasn't combative or she'd have been charged with more than jaywalking and refusal to provide ID. This could have been handled better initially by the officers and she could have reacted better after being startled. Like I said before, bad behavior on both sides.[/quote'] He apologized for one comment, and I would say he has more information than you or I. I've yet to see anything the officers did wrong here. Sometimes people hitch their wagons to the wrong cases trying to claim the police were wrong. There are definitely cases of police misconduct in this country, this doesn't seem to be one of them IMO.
February 25, 201412 yr Not sure if this has been posted in its entirety. § 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information. (b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has: (1) lawfully arrested the person; (2) lawfully detained the person; or (3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense. © Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an offense under this section is: (1) a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or (2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b). (d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is: (1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or (2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b). (e) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section 106.07. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 869, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 821, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1009, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
February 25, 201412 yr Not sure if this has been posted in its entirety. § 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information. (b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has: (1) lawfully arrested the person; (2) lawfully detained the person; or (3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense. © Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an offense under this section is: (1) a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or (2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b). (d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is: (1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or (2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b). (e) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section 106.07. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 869, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 821, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1009, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003. Key part: "...who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information." If you are lawfully arrested then you are definitely 'detained'. No excuse at that point for not giving the information. No sense in digging a hole deeper.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.