TexasCHLforum.com

n5wd wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

n5wd wrote:

mojo84 wrote:http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dallas-o ... -man-fired

Fire and charged with a felony.

Partially correct. The officer was fired, but the judge the police asked to sign the arrest warrant refused to do so, and suggested the DPD present the case to the grand jury directly. So Chief Brown later said that's what they're going to do.

And now, DPD-IA is to investigate the officer's partner, who by the way is the one that wrote the offense report. His goose is probably cooked, as well, since the story the shooter told apparently (according to the WBAP news reporter) did not match what the offense report said.

That would mean that judge, who was presented the affidavit, did not believe there is enough evidence at this point.

OR, the judge decided that there was no immediate need for the officer to be arrested, and decided to punt to the grand jury.... OR.... it could be that he thinks he's keeping solidarity with the rank-and-file of the department.

texanjoker wrote:"Weaker" cases often go to the grand jury to see if they indict. Remember we are only reading what the media is telling us. There are many questions to be asked and answered. For me I want to know if the leo lied or if it is a perception issue resulting from a critical incident where he believed something to be happening. Seeing that the deceased got up, that could be a partial reality. Time will tell.

Deceased?

texanjoker wrote:

n5wd wrote:

mojo84 wrote:http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dallas-o ... -man-fired

Fire and charged with a felony.

Partially correct. The officer was fired, but the judge the police asked to sign the arrest warrant refused to do so, and suggested the DPD present the case to the grand jury directly. So Chief Brown later said that's what they're going to do.

And now, DPD-IA is to investigate the officer's partner, who by the way is the one that wrote the offense report. His goose is probably cooked, as well, since the story the shooter told apparently (according to the WBAP news reporter) did not match what the offense report said.

That would mean that judge, who was presented the affidavit, did not believe there is enough evidence at this point. "Weaker" cases often go to the grand jury to see if they indict. Remember we are only reading what the media is telling us. There are many questions to be asked and answered. For me I want to know if the leo lied or if it is a perception issue resulting from a critical incident where he believed something to be happening. Seeing that the deceased got up, that could be a partial reality. Time will tell.

jmra wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

jmra wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I thought they called the Texas Rangers and to do investigations like that.do you think they called the FBI because they are saying it's a civil rights violation?

Who is "they"?

Usually the internal affairs of the department that has to investigate their own.

In that case I doubt "they" called the FBI because a federal civil rights conviction against a Dallas PD officer means the dept pays millions if not tens of millions to the victim.

jmra wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I thought they called the Texas Rangers and to do investigations like that.do you think they called the FBI because they are saying it's a civil rights violation?

Who is "they"?

texanjoker wrote:

jmra wrote:Unfortunately perception is everything. No matter what other evidence is presented this is going to be a PR nightmare for the department. Right or wrong, anything short of charges being filed against the officers is going to be perceived by the public as a coverup.

Let me ask you this. Now a leo and chl are different in that the leos responded to this call. However, consider if you had to use your handgun in self defense. Would you want the powers that be to cave to public perception (GZ is a good example), or do a complete investigation and go by the facts of the case, whatever they may be even if that went against the public perception? The only thing we the public know is what the media has told us and a silent video. Nobody knows what the officers "really" said expect for the people involved in the investigation. If the grand jury clears the officers and the dept finds this was within their policy, they need to back their officers and not cave to public perception. Time will tell and if they did wrong we will read all about it, and if they didn't we won't hear anything from the media.