TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:

jmra wrote:

texanjoker wrote:All this over trying to find a joint? That is pretty amazing.

If that was really what this was all about wouldn't a drug sniffing dog have been a better search option?

A visual image I really didn't need!!!

you just had to didn't you

texanjoker wrote:

JP171 wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

JP171 wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Should the penalty be sixty days wages for anyone that commits sexual molestation?

According to the grand jury she did meet the elements of committing sexual molestation .... that is our system. Personally I have issue with the fact that she did that type of search regardless if she was told to or not. If it is illegal or violates policy you say no. Now I can see if she was a rookie she might have been scared too, but then she could have gone to a supervisor. For all we know she might have as we are not privy to the internal investigation. There is no policy that states you have to refuse an unlawful order. Had they used some common sense and wanted her prosecuted there would have been more applicable charges. Instead, like the GZ case, they went on public emotion and they tried to file charges they could not prove. I am sure the other fired trooper will state he did not tell her to do the cavity search. He might have he might not have. Again we are not privy to the full internal investigation.

TJ, the above further promotes the US vs. Them mentality, If I had done this during a perimeter or point security operation I would be in the stockade for 25 to life at hard labor in Ft Leavenworth, or if while I was on an ambulance I would be in the state jail and my paramedic license along with the rest of my licenses would be gone forever. The thin blue line lives and flourishes with this decision. Also the excuse I was just following orders is never an excuse just ask those serving time from Abu Graihb detention center and other actions during war.

How did the alleged "thin blue line" have anything to do with this? DPS tried to prosecute her and the grand jury said no because they apparently couldn't prove enough for an indictment. Blame the grand jury and don't try and make this an US vs. them mentality as it wasn't. The inspector generals office did their case and she was fired. Blame the attorneys that got her the job back. It was also attorneys that stopped the grand jury indictment. That is the system.

Didn't say nor imply that the lawyers were not responsible, but people generally won't see it that way, they see another cop does something illegal and gets away with it, the us vs. them mentality is furthered by the fact that a cop claimed something that no one else can claim(Stoopid look on face " I was only following orders") and get away with it and people see that the prosecuting attorney set the bar on the charges high enough that it couldn't be met on purpose and there is the thin blue line, and you know that it exists cops cover for liars all the time, those bad cops give the good ones a bad rap. We do have a legal obligation to refuse unlawful orders we also have a moral obligation to do the same, the law and morals lost this time. One last thing I wasn't hammering on you just answering something you posted, please don't take it personal, so far here you seem to be an upright kinda guy. People make up the grand Jury and when they are told a cop is "exempt" from the law it sticks no matter what any judge tells the jury during instructions, People expect the police to be better than that and they are only human and forget so are cops or should I say merely human.

Nothing personal so we are all good . I know that OIG attempted to get a prosecution and it failed. They also wanted her fired. I would bet there is something we are not hearing about as to why she got her job back. We probably will never know that unless she fought the suspension due to confidentiality. I always read about "lying" cops. When people lie they should be fired (correctly). Where I started we were told day 1, you lie, you are gone. If somebody lied they were true to their word and the hammer came down quickly . All this over trying to find a joint? That is pretty amazing.

Glad we are good, I really wasn't trying to cause one of them there p matches. I agree we really don't know why she was reinstated, I don't agree with the decision knowing what I know to this point. I do think that the reason of " I was just doing what my senior officer told me to do" was used. I have seen in the news and in person some bad things done by officers while on the bus(ambulance) never said much but didn't ever invite the officer(s) to have any of my donuts after that either. I do think that LEO's same as soldiers should be held to a higher standard for several reasons not the least being we represent in the eyes of the public "the government" be it state city or country. As far as the grand jury case we can get a copy of the court transcript if we want to pay the price and I can almost guarantee that the CR is gonna charge thru the nose for that one.

JM Actually I doubt that this is really over a possible personal use possession of marijuana, we really have no idea of anything else that happened nor do we know the attitude of the actors during this. I really hate to say but it seems almost as a contempt of cop thing, maybe the officer didn't get his coffee or someone made him mad and they were the people he happened to contact next, he may have had a pet peeve over throwing butts out the window and decided to "make someone pay" we just don't know, but from what I was able to see and hear on the video they didn't deserve what occurred, but the sexual assault is NEVER deserved not even in war

texanjoker wrote:

JP171 wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Should the penalty be sixty days wages for anyone that commits sexual molestation?

According to the grand jury she did meet the elements of committing sexual molestation .... that is our system. Personally I have issue with the fact that she did that type of search regardless if she was told to or not. If it is illegal or violates policy you say no. Now I can see if she was a rookie she might have been scared too, but then she could have gone to a supervisor. For all we know she might have as we are not privy to the internal investigation. There is no policy that states you have to refuse an unlawful order. Had they used some common sense and wanted her prosecuted there would have been more applicable charges. Instead, like the GZ case, they went on public emotion and they tried to file charges they could not prove. I am sure the other fired trooper will state he did not tell her to do the cavity search. He might have he might not have. Again we are not privy to the full internal investigation.

TJ, the above further promotes the US vs. Them mentality, If I had done this during a perimeter or point security operation I would be in the stockade for 25 to life at hard labor in Ft Leavenworth, or if while I was on an ambulance I would be in the state jail and my paramedic license along with the rest of my licenses would be gone forever. The thin blue line lives and flourishes with this decision. Also the excuse I was just following orders is never an excuse just ask those serving time from Abu Graihb detention center and other actions during war.

How did the alleged "thin blue line" have anything to do with this? DPS tried to prosecute her and the grand jury said no because they apparently couldn't prove enough for an indictment. Blame the grand jury and don't try and make this an US vs. them mentality as it wasn't. The inspector generals office did their case and she was fired. Blame the attorneys that got her the job back. It was also attorneys that stopped the grand jury indictment. That is the system.

Didn't say nor imply that the lawyers were not responsible, but people generally won't see it that way, they see another cop does something illegal and gets away with it, the us vs. them mentality is furthered by the fact that a cop claimed something that no one else can claim(Stoopid look on face " I was only following orders") and get away with it and people see that the prosecuting attorney set the bar on the charges high enough that it couldn't be met on purpose and there is the thin blue line, and you know that it exists cops cover for liars all the time, those bad cops give the good ones a bad rap. We do have a legal obligation to refuse unlawful orders we also have a moral obligation to do the same, the law and morals lost this time. One last thing I wasn't hammering on you just answering something you posted, please don't take it personal, so far here you seem to be an upright kinda guy. People make up the grand Jury and when they are told a cop is "exempt" from the law it sticks no matter what any judge tells the jury during instructions, People expect the police to be better than that and they are only human and forget so are cops or should I say merely human.

texanjoker wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Should the penalty be sixty days wages for anyone that commits sexual molestation?

According to the grand jury she did meet the elements of committing sexual molestation .... that is our system. Personally I have issue with the fact that she did that type of search regardless if she was told to or not. If it is illegal or violates policy you say no. Now I can see if she was a rookie she might have been scared too, but then she could have gone to a supervisor. For all we know she might have as we are not privy to the internal investigation. There is no policy that states you have to refuse an unlawful order. Had they used some common sense and wanted her prosecuted there would have been more applicable charges. Instead, like the GZ case, they went on public emotion and they tried to file charges they could not prove. I am sure the other fired trooper will state he did not tell her to do the cavity search. He might have he might not have. Again we are not privy to the full internal investigation.

TJ, the above further promotes the US vs. Them mentality, If I had done this during a perimeter or point security operation I would be in the stockade for 25 to life at hard labor in Ft Leavenworth, or if while I was on an ambulance I would be in the state jail and my paramedic license along with the rest of my licenses would be gone forever. The thin blue line lives and flourishes with this decision. Also the excuse I was just following orders is never an excuse just ask those serving time from Abu Graihb detention center and other actions during war.

beginning to wonder if Mike is back under another nic

gigag04 wrote:

urnoodle wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

urnoodle wrote:He requested the search on bogus grounds.

You're basing this on what exactly?

The cavity search was bogus on the grounds of a smell of marijuana. These officers should have been arrested immediately as any other citizen would have been with less evidence

I don't recall him requesting a cavity search. She took it there. He just requested a female troop swing by if she wasn't busy to search two females. I'm still not sure what the first sentence of your post is implying - are you saying that the odor of narcotics alone is not PC for a search?

steveincowtown wrote:

gigag04 wrote:I'm sure that I'm alone in this, but if the troop smelled weed, then a search was reasonable. (Maybe not the manner in searching, but that was the female).

The comments and answers from the driver indicate to me that she knows that weed has been in the car recently.

Is there solid evidence pointing out that the male knew the full scope of the search? I might have missed something glaring.

Possibly. The blonde suspect tells the male trooper "I have never been searched like this...she put her finger in my....." (review the tape for the balance, don't want to violate the 10 year old daughter rule).

If the male trooper had a shred of Honor he would have immediately gone to his superior and reported the female trooper.

Understood on the fact finding, but I think they are already there.

You may feel that they are already there, but you just stated that there was POSSIBLY evidence that the male troop was privy to the level if search conducted by his partner. I agree with that statement - he might have known. I feel that it is equally as likely that he had no idea what the female was doing to those two in searching. Without more info, you and can't make an accurate determination just from the video.

I also fully agree that there should have been follow up after those comments were made. People accuse LEOs of all sorts of things all the times, but the seriousness of those comments warranted a conversation with the partner and then up the chain from there. Do we know for a fact he didn't do this? I haven't seen anything speaking to one action or the other regarding post stop follow up.



Lastly, due to the high volume of citizen complaints, people are almost never suspended w/o pay until a thorough investigation is completed. No doubt she will spend hours in front of rangers and probably some polygraph machines.

(edited to clean up iPhone posting)

Marajuana isn't a narcotic

the female trooper was suspended with pay, the case is being refered to a grand jury in january. no illegal drugs were found and prescrition meds were removed illegally, hmmm

gigag04 wrote:

urnoodle wrote:He requested the search on bogus grounds.

You're basing this on what exactly?

Gig, I have to agree that the search was on very thin grounds, the vacilitation of the officer seems to indicate either capricious or malicious intent. The chatty nature of the driver does seem to possibly be a catalyst but that may have been just nervousness, the statements about the smell of marajuana in light of the multiple references to smoking almost point to another reason, possible predisposition of an anti-smoking crusading officer. I know that some officers ask you to put out your cigarette, not sure why really other than either a control issue or some nebulous fear that they may be exposed to second hand smoke and get cancer. I really think that the officer was either fishing or being someone who was going to find something no matter what happened or teach the driver a lesson.