TexasCHLforum.com

Thanks Steve. Excellent clear explanation, as usual. Great to have you around here.

srothstein wrote:There are two points to take into account on this. The first and most important is that this is an edited video and not continuous coverage that the news is showing. I am always very leery of edited videos. Even given that, the news story does make it look very bad for the police involved. The big questions is what evidence he will have of the second assault while walking down the hallway. The second point is that we do not yet know enough about the subsequent arrest. If the police filed the charges on him, they would have had the warrant by the time he came back in. That arrest might be legal, even though the news story makes it look like it was revenge. Resisting and failure to display a CHL are both misdemeanors. You can arrest at the scene or with a warrant, but not legally arrest without the warrant several days later.

srothstein,
Always value your wise comments and would like some clarification on this one for my education. First, I agree that if things had stopped after the original encounter, and them given the guy the dashcam tape when he asked for it, there would be minimal risk of them getting in trouble. There was some mis-understanding, but the guy got out of the car, said he had a CHL (which could be interpreted as a threat, even if it wasn't), and they got him under control. Too much force? Probably. Enough over the top to bring a lawsuit? Doubtful. And I doubt there's any evidence of the assault walking down the hall at the police station.

However, I would have thought that the subsequent arrest (which is on the record, I take it, since the DA refused to prosecute) would be completely over the top and clear indication of the intent to intimidate. I thought if they were going to arrest you for resisting arrest, that arrest would have to be made immediately, at the scene. And that would show that arresting the guy weeks later was purely for intimidation. But what is this about a warrant that you mention? I understand a warrant to search your house, or to arrest someone because you know they committed a crime but haven't been able to find them yet. But I am not familiar with this warrant for a crime where police were present, and did not arrest the person on the spot, but instead released him and went to the judge to get a warrant and then arrest him way after the fact? I'm not sure my tone will come across correctly on this so let me just state clearly that I'm not being sarcastic or anything like that, I just don't understand that type of warrant and what the process is and would like to be educated if you have the time.

Thanks!