TexasCHLforum.com

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

The female Texas trooper who performed a roadside cavity search on two Irving women will be terminated according to the Department of Public Safety.

Crossfire wrote:

texanjoker wrote: I personally believe an LE is innocent until proven guilty just like everybody else.

You mean just like a CHL holder, whose license is suspended, and gun confiscated, as soon as they are charged with a DUI?

texanjoker wrote:

gemini wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

carlson1 wrote:The Ft. Worth Police Chief just decided yesterday that his officers that were arrested for DWI could be fired rather than demoted.

Yeah, you'd think a police chief would understand the importance of due process.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/tarrant/ ... 70482.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
.....“I will not tolerate it,” he said. “If you are sustained in that allegation, you will not be working in this organization.”

In the four years since Halstead’s led the department, 14 Fort Worth police officers have been arrested on suspicion of DWI, including one who caused a crash that killed 27-year-old mother Sonia Baker in 2009.......

The one arrested Wed. had worked the DUI Task Force.
I believe the Chief is finally holding his men to a "higher standard" and if I lived in Ft Worth I'd support him.
No one should have to face a drunk driver whether it's a drunk LEO, a drunk soccer Mom or a drunk Hobo. Drunk drivers kill.

now, back to DPS..... sorry to let the thread drift

So much for being innocent until proven guilty, but then the IA can find the officer guilty where a jury cleared them.

Bitter_Clinger wrote:

schufflerbot wrote:the article reads that the officer (not sure which one) has a long history of misconduct including inappropriate strip searches, cavity searches, etc.


this was a huge foul up on the part of those in charge, if that is the case. once an officer develops a pattern of this type of behavior it's time to pull them off the street and glue them to a desk chair.

Or remove them from law enforcement altogether.

texanjoker wrote: I earned that one ...but I didn't want what I perceive to be a troll causing drama and a further gap between LEO's and CHL holders.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I completely understand the safety issues when booking a prisoner in a jail, and if a body cavity search is called for in that situation, then it is what it is. But absent an arrest, it is a sick and evil thing to do to somebody, particularly right there in public on the side of the road. Jesus.......put yourself in their shoes. Is that what you would want done to you? All I know is that if you do a body cavity search on me, on the side of the road, especially with a 2nd hand glove, you darn well BETTER find something or I'm going to own your hindparts, and your house, and your department's budget for the next 10 years. How come it's not rape when you do it to a non-consenting innocent person, but it is rape if I do it? If any cop thinks he can stick a finger in my body where God never intended it to go, then I will, by God, give him a very good reason to arrest me, and he may well have to shoot me because I am NOT submitting to that kind of indignity and abuse without getting some licks in. I don't care what the reasoning is. You don't do that to someone without first arresting them. If you're a cop and you think this is OK to digitally rape somebody on the roadside without arresting and booking them first, then your moral compass is so far out of gimbal that you aren't qualified to be a cop.

End of story.

No, dangit.....NOT end of story. I swear to God that this is NOT something the Founders would have understood to be OK. Cops who make excuses that "well uuuhhhh....the Supreme Court allows it....." flat dishonor their oaths. I don't want to hear a cop justify this stuff to me. That doesn't give me faith in law enforcement. No. I want to hear LEOs say "you're right, that is wrong, and raping a citizen on the roadside in some unbridled effort to find evidence before arresting and bringing them in is dead wrong and unacceptable." 30-40 years ago, this would have been unthinkable, and it is just another example of the slippery slope we're on toward a police state. Let me ask you LEOs who think this is OK......since there was a time when it was unthinkable, and now it is SOP, how long will it be before you think it's OK to just cut somebody open with your knife to find out what they've swallowed?

Seriously. I am really disappointed that anyone who thinks of himself as a decent cop would defend this practice by the side of the road like that. Just one more reason to withdraw from society.

gigag04 wrote:

carlson1 wrote:When you give them an inch they take a mile. We allow them to have "power" they should never have been given. Citizens are treated as criminals. Disarm CHL's, search vehicles under the disguise of safety, keep you standing on the side of the road for hours waiting on the "drug dog" because you stood up for your rights and refused a search, now body cavity searches because they think they smell marijuana etc. . . etc. . .

The officer's word is LAW.

Who is "them"? A handful of the +/- 75,000 peace officers in Texas?

I understand you were a former officer at one point, and a mod on this board, both of which I respect. With that, I am having a hard time reading words like "they think they smell marijuana" and not taking them personal. As someone who frequently deals with the stuff roadside, it is an easy odor to identify. Your comment seems to call into question the integrity of what I am doing. The behavior you list compiles isolated incidents that are exceptions not the rule as to how LE in TX interact withe public. With cameras on the officers lapels coming out now, and dash cameras, this is one of the most monitored professions I can think.

If I were to make a blanket post on this board making sweeping statements lumping all CHL holders on gun enthusiasts into one group and make broad statements, I wager that the post would be moved to the invisible mod forum, and I would be sent a nasty PM.

Though offended, I think mostly I am disappointed with the content of this post.