TexasCHLforum.com

jmra wrote:$185,000 settlement. Mixed feelings here. Wish this was being paid by the ex trooper instead of our tax money.

Me too. Perhaps if they had to pay these settlements instead of the city that would be a mitigating factor in in behavior and the execution of illegal orders.

Oh good so now rapists get two years of probation. I know of a man who did nothing more than put his gun on in view of a school bus who was threatened with much more than that.

This was rape and it was violent by it's very nature. What makes it worse is that it is rape under color of law. Which means that the women could not even fight back against the person violating them. I don't think two years of probation covers that.

I understand that was not what she was convicted of and that she did a plea deal, but still. I get precious little satisfaction from knowing that a person could rape my daughter and I and then even though she admitted to what she did, and it was caught on tape that they would get off so light cause "someone told her to do it" while she was wearing a uniform.

So we who were outraged at the start, and were admonished to wait and let the facts play out have done so. With precious little satisfaction. Two women were digitally raped by officers under color of law and there were next to nothing of consequences for the offenders. There is nothing to stop this from happening again to me or to my daughters.

As has been alluded to, there is precious little I can do to stop it. At least if an unbadged criminal attacks me I can fight them off. If a criminal with a badge (which is what i consider these two officers to be)decides to rape me I must stand still and let it happen. Then even if it is brought to light those who attacked me violently (rape is violent even undercor of law) will get away with two months of lost salary as a punishment because someone else told her to do it! How is this justice? How is this reassuring to the rest of us women that we will not be raped and our rapist let go.

My eight year old would know better than to give me that excuse (but johnny told me to hit susie) for anything. I am disgusted and very upset and my confidence in DPS is SEVERELY shaken.

I could respect the grand jury (though I do not understand how they accepted that excuse), but what I cannot abide is that this officer who was willing to violate two women in a most disturbing fashion will be back on the beat.


We think we are so sophisticated in our justice system, but even in far more brutal times representatives of the govt that raped people in good standing with the gov't faced justice.

texanjoker wrote:

philip964 wrote:http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... cmpid=hpbn

Female officer reinstated after grand jury fails to indite.

I am thinking of all the negative posts I have read on the net about this and negative comments in general about leo's because of this incident. If the jury declines to indict her that is their choice. They did not feel it warranted the charges the state tried to file. As in other cases, people have to accept that just like some had to accept GZ's verdict because that is our system. She received a 60 day fine which is pretty steep.

McCraw said Friday that Bui will be suspended for 60 days and undergo additional training. He added that he was requiring all state police officers to re-familiarize themselves with the department policy on strip searches and body cavity searches.

That may be a steep fine, but that is nothing compared to what those two girls got at her hands. She is very fortunate.

Nice....so they can digitally rape citizens and no one goes to jail? Gives me great confidence.

Good......my faith in our system is restored to a small degree.

Good. Gives me some hope in the rule of law in Texas.

E.Marquez wrote: No sir, we have a video of a female LEO searching a person. We DO NOT have a video of what you and the plaintiff claim.. a Body Cavity search.. That IS THE POINT...

Again,,,, the search may be valid based on the officers articulation of PC or RS... Which is not recorded in the video.. but may very well be in the report filed.. Have you seen it? Ya me neither. .

Let's say you are right and that they are lying through thier teeth about being raped. The police officers still performed a very invasive search that put both of these women at risk of infection and STD's. With what appears to be precious little cause. What will happen next week I wonder, strip searches for jay walking conducted on sidewalks? If they had enough probable cause for this kind of search they should have cuffed them and stuffed them. So I still say they both have to go. Just on the grounds of how they endangered these women by their method should be enough for serious concern.

Based on what i see and hear in a one sided video and a plaintiffs claim.. I would like to see this go to trial and be run though the investigative function of DPS.. As I don't think it was right.. But making unfounded claims with no evidence and convicting the person in advance of a trial.. Heck,, is that not what many hear complain about loudly when it happens to a Concealed hand gun carrier, , or at TSA screen-er, or....

Sir I see enough evidence on the screen to convict them of several crimes absent very extreme extenuating circumstances. They did not take these girls downtown which tells me a whole lot about the amount of probable cause they had. They did an extremely invasive search on the side of the road. They endangered both of these girls lives by doing so. This is unacceptable on so many levels.


If I had the amount of evidence stacked against me that these two do I would expect to be batter dipped and fried by the public.

E.Marquez wrote:

Bitter_Clinger wrote:

mikedude wrote:From what I saw, sticking a hand down the pants is not a cavity search. As I stated, I await the facts. IF she did this, she will be dealt with.

She did NOT just stick her hands down the victims' pants! There was digital penetration!! Do you just see what you want to see or are you a hopeless apologist for authoritarian, police-state tactics??

In all fairness.. we DO NOT KNOW that.. It has been alleged to have happened that way.

If a MWAG call comes in and you are accused and arrested for " displaying a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;"... I assume you would want the benefit of the doubt at least until all evidence was presented.. You would expect those on this board, the media, and a judge to not jump to conclusions

And no Im not defending the actions of the LEO's in this event, but neither am I taking the accusers verbal complaint at face value.

Yeah but if they had a video of me brandishing and pointing my firearm at people I would expect to be toast. We have a video of what happened.

It is not "meh who cares" as long as they did not actually penetrate the women. There was no cause whatsoever to go into these women's pants at all. I am sorry but a cigarette butt out the window is not cause for that level of a search and while "thinking you smell 'MJ'" might be probable cause for a pat down and a search of the car. It is still not probable cause for a cavity search. Then, If you then tell the woman that the heavy tobacco smell you mistook for MJ then you need to go back to the academy, because you the heavy smell of tobacco is not illegal nor is it cause for any level of search at all. I have never smoked a cigarette nor a joint in my life and I can tell the difference between the two. I am sorry these two need to go. The man for calling for a search on a suspicion of heavy tobacco smell in a car, and the woman for sexual assault of citizens.

VMI I am good with that. No passes allowed for the brass while a private gets thrown in the slammer. If a person's fingerprints were anywhere near this they need to pay.

VMI77 wrote:

PUCKER wrote:To me, it appears that this TX DPS "occifer" (purposely typed this way) is setting herself up in a very bad way...if this not a case of sexual assault/aggravated sexual assault, I do not know what is.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

To me it seems like the officers involved are not doing something out of the ordinary but following established policy. The female officer obviously believes she is acting in accordance with policy because she deliberately conducts the search on camera. I don't know what the policy is or what their orders are, so it's difficult to know for sure whether the officers even used bad personal judgement. If these officers were following policy, it is the policy makers who need to be held to account, not the officers. Whether in the military or law enforcement, I'm sick and tired of the people in the front-line being held accountable for actions they'd never have taken without the consent, orders, or approval from those in charge. Punishment needs to flow upwards when those at the bottom are following policies and orders from those above them. The most severe punishment should be for those who gave the orders or created the policy --and many times those implementing these policies should get a pass.

That is gets a big maybe. Look, I know better than to put my hands in another citizens orfices. If I did so I would be charged. The officer doing this is counting on getting a pass because "it's procedure".....know what, you are a human being too. If I am accountable to know when something is over the line so is she. Maybe another person said it was ok to do, but she did it. Sorry no pass here on this one. Additionally she is accoutable because she put these women in danger of infection and STD's by not changing gloves and following hygienic procedures. UNACCEPTABLE!

This is unacceptable. Lets start with the first thing that comes to mind. Why are you sticking your hand down someones shorts on the side of the road. If you believe that much that they have pot in their bodies then cuff them, take them downtown. If you think this type of search is needful then arrest them. Secondly if you take them downtown, and you and your supervisor still think that a cavity search is warranted. Do it in private. These people are citizens, not proven criminals. Third.....for God's sakes be sanitary. One glove to check both ( I want to throw up at the thought of that). You can give people STD's that way. Second when you check a woman, you check the front then the back. If you do it the other way you can again cause infection.


This whole thing makes me

Everyone who had anything to do with authorizing this needs to go. The people who did this need to face charges. You don't digitally rape someone on the side of the road. You don't make then vulnerable to STD's and infection. I am so very very angry about this.