TexasCHLforum.com

Heck jogging in Vibrams should alone be grounds for arrest!

Texas_Blaze wrote:There's been a lot of threads on OC and bad tactics. Well, this seems to be bad tactics by the officers. Honestly, nothing better to do? You want public support? Don't engage in bad tactics like this. A jogger minding her own business is a criminal? If she was jaywalking, give her a ticket and move on.

In order for the popo to give her a citation, which is in effect an order to reprt to a court on a particular date (or chose to plead guilty and pay the fine OR plead no-contest and pay the fine) is that the person getting the citation must give evidence of her true name and address, which this young lady apparently refused to do. She got the cuffs and the ride (and, the humiliation) because she refused to identify herself to the po-leese, not because she was jaywalking.

n5wd wrote:

Texas_Blaze wrote:There's been a lot of threads on OC and bad tactics. Well, this seems to be bad tactics by the officers. Honestly, nothing better to do? You want public support? Don't engage in bad tactics like this. A jogger minding her own business is a criminal? If she was jaywalking, give her a ticket and move on.

In order for the popo to give her a citation, which is in effect an order to reprt to a court on a particular date (or chose to plead guilty and pay the fine OR plead no-contest and pay the fine) is that the person getting the citation must give evidence of her true name and address, which this young lady apparently refused to do. She got the cuffs and the ride (and, the humiliation) because she refused to identify herself to the po-leese, not because she was jaywalking.

depends on what "give evidence" means. you are not required by law to carry ID unless you are driving a vehicle. So, it depends on the exact charge they booked her on. I read that someone had looked it up and it was "failure to produce id", if that's the case, it will be thrown out (but the person who looked it up could have been wrong)

SewTexas wrote:

n5wd wrote:

Texas_Blaze wrote:There's been a lot of threads on OC and bad tactics. Well, this seems to be bad tactics by the officers. Honestly, nothing better to do? You want public support? Don't engage in bad tactics like this. A jogger minding her own business is a criminal? If she was jaywalking, give her a ticket and move on.

In order for the popo to give her a citation, which is in effect an order to reprt to a court on a particular date (or chose to plead guilty and pay the fine OR plead no-contest and pay the fine) is that the person getting the citation must give evidence of her true name and address, which this young lady apparently refused to do. She got the cuffs and the ride (and, the humiliation) because she refused to identify herself to the po-leese, not because she was jaywalking.

depends on what "give evidence" means. you are not required by law to carry ID unless you are driving a vehicle. So, it depends on the exact charge they booked her on. I read that someone had looked it up and it was "failure to produce id", if that's the case, it will be thrown out (but the person who looked it up could have been wrong)

The law is Texas PC 38.02

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.

(c) Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an offense under this section is:
(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).

(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is:
(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or
(2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).

(e) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section 106.07.

Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 38.02.

The Austin PD lawfully detained her because she was jaywalking. In order to give her a citation (which is in effect an arrest) they had to identify her. If she refused to give any name, date of birth, address information, then she was charged under 38.02 (a). If she gave the police false information, it was 38.02 (b). Either of these would be a C misdemeanor, but since she didn't give ID, she could NOT be ticketed and released. She'd have to be taken in and fingerprinted and photographed, and identified (so the PD can see if there are any other agencies looking for her) before she could be released. Does Austin PD do DNA on everyone arrested? Don't know - seems there was some broo-haha about doing that in the past.

As the police chief said in his press conference, she was charged with a lesser offense then she could have been: she could also have been charged with resisting arrest, which is PC 38.03, and is a Class A misdemeanor.

This will not get thrown out of court unless the city prosecutor's office (I THINK it's the city that'll prosecute her since it's a misdemeanor - county DA's would have been the prosecutor if it was a felony - of course, I could be wrong about that in this case) chooses to not fight this battle.

This is what happens when you hire a Californian to run your police department.

Keith B wrote:While I think grabbing someone who was just j-walking is totally out of limits, this does bring up a good point on situational awareness. When you are so wrapped up in your music and have it so loud in your ears that you can't hear someone trying purposely trying to get your attention from behind you, then you sure are not gonna know if someone is trying to sneak up on you. I listen to my music pretty loud in the gym, but I am always aware of the front of the workout area and the doors to see who is outside and who may be looking to get in. My gym uses card readers for access, so it is not just open, but you never know who might have stolen someone's keys and is using their key fob to try and come in.

Situational awareness story from a young 21 year old Marine who knew everything. Walking a post with my walk-man in the cargo pocket of my utilities, and the headphones cord snaked up under my camouflage jacket I was listening to my music, ever vigilant of my surroundings. Since I was "ever vigilant" of my surroundings I noticed very early when the Sergeant of the Guard exited the barracks at a full run with a squad of Marines at his heels. "Click" in the cargo pocket and the walk-man was off well before he got anywhere near me.

Sgt: Where did the shot come from?
Me: I didn't hear any shot.
Sgt: How could you not hear that shot?
Me: I was listening to my walkman.
Sgt: Let me see it.
Sgt: Crunch.

My thoughts after his boot heel destroyed my walk-man was how stupid I was. No walk-mans were ever purchased by me again. I forbid my children to have them as well and they knew how dangerous they could be by not hearing warning sounds, completely oblivious to the sound of the world. Something as simple as not hearing a "look out" or the screeching sound of car tires or a car horn or a bellowing bull before a charge could mean instant death or injury.

Cheers!

If APD was in fact out there writing jaywalking tickets, I'll go ahead and say what an epic waste of time.

Not sure what their deal with her was.

This is the kind of out of control law enforcement that we should not tolerate in our society.

Defending this police action makes you a hypocrite in your defense of the 2ed amendment. There are other liberties we have lost too.

rwilso wrote:This is the kind of out of control law enforcement that we should not tolerate in our society.

Defending this police action makes you a hypocrite in your defense of the 2ed amendment. There are other liberties we have lost too.

I really don't think anyone here is defending their actions, it's just dicussion. However, how would defending this be part of the 2nd amendment?

Judging by the size of the PoPo involved she should have just kept running....

WildBill wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:

Texas_Blaze wrote:There's been a lot of threads on OC and bad tactics. Well, this seems to be bad tactics by the officers. Honestly, nothing better to do? You want public support? Don't engage in bad tactics like this. A jogger minding her own business is a criminal? If she was jaywalking, give her a ticket and move on.

It seems like the transit police everywhere are more aggressive. I worked at Renaissance tower in Dallas for awhile and jaywalking there was going to get you not only a ticket but a dose of real attitude. NJ and NY had the Port Authority police and many of those that I saw were definitely over the top.

There is a case to be made about being so into your tunes with earbuds that you don't understand what is happening around you. But it sure looks like this was a "make a public example" situation. Granted her response didn't help her after the heavy handed tactics had begun.

She was jaywalking. Bad on her. Ending up in the back of a cruiser for that offense seems like overkill no matter how I try to look at it.

[Fortunately] I haven't had the pleasure of meeting up with transit police.

I think that in these types of cases the officers have to demonstrate their ability to control the situation and make sure that people are compliant to their commands.

Even it might be overkill, they can't just let the woman walk away.

I ride my bike along public bike paths. I often pass joggers with ear buds in. It is always my practice to hail them, especially if I'm passing them from behind so that they won't suddenly swerve into my path during my pass. Almost none of them appear to hear my hail. If I've figured this out, the jaywalk enforcing officers should be able to do the same thing.The assumption was that the woman was failing to voluntarily comply. My assumption is that she didn't have that opportunity to do so. They reacted by grabbing her when it would have been just about as easy to wave a hand in front of her eyes to get her attention rather than grabbing her. Someone who is unexpectedly grabbed is very likely to have a startled reaction and attempt to pull away.

I admit that it is a questionable practice to wear earbuds in public places. It is plain stupid (in my view) from a situational awareness point of view. But wearing earbuds in not yet criminal and turning a failure to hear into a failure to comply is an unnecessary escalation of the matter.

Perhaps I'm over-reacting? I sponsored a thread here in the past year which discussed my hearing loss and my concern that I may be in a position not to comply as crisply as an LEO might demand. The specific situation that I cited as my worst possible environment with cars and trucks passing as might occur during a traffic stop. I have a problem processing what I strain to hear under those kinds of conditions and there is sometimes a delay in my response.

It is one thing to need to take control of a situation. It is another to give the subject a reasonable opportunity to respond. "Reasonable" is not a synonym for "instantaneous"

What if she had been deaf? My wife is hard of hearing and we know a deaf family and all of them could have fit this situation. Actually I take that back, if you grab my wife from behind she's liable to hurt you really really badly.

(EDIT: I see CHAS1 posted the same question).

I wonder how many lawyers have offered her their services?

To mimic what the chief said, I can't believe what passes as controversy on Texas Chl forum .

texanjoker wrote:To mimic what the chief said, I can't believe what passes as controversy on Texas Chl forum .

You don't see this is controversial? While she may have been in the wrong and jaywalked, it is very over the top to physically subdue a person and arrest on this charge.