TexasCHLforum.com

tomtexan wrote:

EEllis wrote:The girls may have just panicked but lets be honest their reactions were not normal, reasonable, or typical.

I disagree also, and here's why.....
From the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

The woman was on edge after spending the night listening to stories from dozens of sexual assault survivors at an annual "Take Back the Night" vigil on Grounds, said Daly's defense attorney, Francis Lawrence.

I would say that their reactions were quite normal, reasonable, or typical, considering what they might have had just learned at the annual "Take Back the Night" vigil that they had just previously attended. I would expect no less.

So everybody went to that event and there were stories of large groups of police impersonators who also included women in them? No? Look Young girls acting panicky in situations they have no experience isn't unheard of but lets not lower the bar so low that that behavior is considered reasonable or normal.

EEllis wrote:I think we are at an impasse here

I completely agree.

EEllis wrote: So everybody went to that event and there were stories of large groups of police impersonators who also included women in them? No? Look Young girls acting panicky in situations they have no experience isn't unheard of but lets not lower the bar so low that that behavior is considered reasonable or normal.

Them hearing stories of police impersonators is not unheard of either. It doesn't matter whether or not a woman was present, women have been known to commit crimes too. While their behavior may not be considered reasonable or normal for most folks, it probably was for them.

JALLEN wrote:Any idea why it takes 6 agents to handle stopping two college girls?

The increasing militarization of police forces gives me lots of worries, all the tacticool units out there acting and equipped like testosterone-crazed Delta Force wannabees, the tragic consequences of their all too frequent mistakes, and the near total immunity therefor which leaves citizens remedy-less, and sometimes dead.

What ever happened to "One riot, one Ranger?"

SWAT wasn't even mentioned, but I'm glad you didn't miss the opportunity the jump in....

There have been insults name calling ridicule but so far the most solid complaint anyone has been able to establish is that they, in their totally unprofessional and no experience opinion, think it could be handled better and the only real suggestion was to quit trying to stop someone if they fight or flee. Oh and that people don't like law enforcement who don't wear uniforms trying to actually enforce laws. Anyone else want to jump on the bandwagon?

EEllis wrote:There have been insults name calling ridicule but so far the most solid complaint anyone has been able to establish is that they, in their totally unprofessional and no experience opinion, think it could be handled better and the only real suggestion was to quit trying to stop someone if they fight or flee. Oh and that people don't like law enforcement who don't wear uniforms trying to actually enforce laws. Anyone else want to jump on the bandwagon?

I mean, I think that it could've been handled better by the ABC guys if it went down as described in the link on the first page.

However, I think their actions have nothing to do with the "militarization" of law enforcement...whatever that term actually means...

gigag04 wrote:

EEllis wrote:There have been insults name calling ridicule but so far the most solid complaint anyone has been able to establish is that they, in their totally unprofessional and no experience opinion, think it could be handled better and the only real suggestion was to quit trying to stop someone if they fight or flee. Oh and that people don't like law enforcement who don't wear uniforms trying to actually enforce laws. Anyone else want to jump on the bandwagon?

I mean, I think that it could've been handled better by the ABC guys if it went down as described in the link on the first page.

However, I think their actions have nothing to do with the "militarization" of law enforcement...whatever that term actually means...

Sure I get that. Heck almost any interaction in any field "could be handled better". I just feel that when one calls for the firing and imprisonment of law enforcement it should include correct and specific reasons for such action. Right now we haven't even heard of a policy violation never mind anything else. That and I also have issue with taking PR blurbs that lawyers have their client make to try and keep them out of jail as the most accurate representation of events. I mean come on.

Wow lets jump on the anti LEO bandwagon again based on one news article . There are no facts there to say anything, other then charges were dropped and that the agency will do an investigation. Charges are dropped all the time on good cases because DA's don't want to go forward. I'd be curious to hear their version as this is pretty far fetched.

And that very well may be the problem. Some LEO's may assume everyone is breaking the law and every citizen is a criminal until proven innocent. Tough job for LEO's but the Fourth Amendment may have been missing here. This could have ended very badly because if that was my daughter she may very well have started shooting in a panic. All over a 12 pack of water. How silly. Seems to me that the "underage" water buying criminals acted more responsibly than the adults on this one. These young ladies processed what little information they had in a few moments of terror and made a choice to not become victims. I wish all the young ladies out there that have been raped and murdered made the same decisions as these girls. Glad nobody was killed.


Cheers

EEllis wrote:That may mean you have to take responsibility for the incident but that shouldn't mean it's ok to call for people's jobs and freedoms with no real basis beyond I don't like it.

I haven't done that (yet) because, as I said in my previous post, all the evidence I've seen has been one-sided. I wouldn't want a cop (or anyone) fired without an investigation, or jailed without a trial. If I've said otherwise, it was an error on my part.

EEllis wrote:

baldeagle wrote:And the agents are too stupid to surmise that they might have intimidated her into fleeing?

That should be their default assumption? Seems like something to argue in court not for the cops to deal with on the street.

It's hard to argue anything in court when you're dead because someone didn't realize that you thought they were the bad guys and they were intimidating you and killed you when you tried to flee to safety. Of course, that's not what happened here, but only because everyone involved got lucky.

Dave2 wrote: I haven't done that (yet) because, as I said in my previous post, all the evidence I've seen has been one-sided.

Honestly I don't think I was responding to just you rather more to the general trend.

It's hard to argue anything in court when you're dead because someone didn't realize that you thought they were the bad guys and they were intimidating you and killed you when you tried to flee to safety. Of course, that's not what happened here, but only because everyone involved got lucky.

Hey you pay your money you take your chances. If you really believe something is going down the boogie but if you are wrong you have to realize you might git zinged and making your pleas to the DA or the Court instead of the cops you just punked is probably the better idea. Now since that is what happened and it worked out as good as anyone could hope what's the problem?

How about these plain clothes LEO realize they are NOT IN UNIFORM and while they may know that they are LEO's and good guys, us the poor stupid non-mind reading citizens do not know. If you run at me and shout at me and wave your hands at me with an object in a dark parking lot I am going to flee if I possibly can.

The problem not one of you fellow LEO have addressed is the fact that these girls had no way of knowing that these were LEO's and not some nut jobs intent on attacking and killing them. People are not mind readers. If you don't look like a LEO don't expect people to treat you like one.

EEllis wrote:First that isn't how she stated it and what car on this planet has to be running to roll down the windows?

Almost every one of them, unless it has manual windows. The ignition has to be in the "on" or "run" position for the power windows to operate on every vehicle I know of, unless it has been running and just shut off, in which case, many will allow you to operate accessory functions, such as stereo, PW, PSeat until such time as the door is opened. Before you ask, my expertise comes courtesy of 40+ years in the business.

EEllis wrote:[That's absurd and unrealistic. IMHO

Not to pick on just you, ( I often qualify)...but "IMHO" has to be the most out of place abbreviation used on any forum....but certainly, in your case, the "H" just doesn't fit!

mamabearCali wrote:How about these plain clothes LEO realize they are NOT IN UNIFORM and while they may know that they are LEO's and good guys, us the poor stupid non-mind reading citizens do not know. If you run at me and shout at me and wave your hands at me with an object in a dark parking lot I am going to flee if I possibly can.

The problem not one of you fellow LEO have addressed is the fact that these girls had no way of knowing that these were LEO's and not some nut jobs intent on attacking and killing them. People are not mind readers. If you don't look like a LEO don't expect people to treat you like one.

The story you are making isn't what anyone that is involved describe. The fact that it was the female agent who was the one to make the initial approach seems to me to be a indicator that they do know that there may be issues and were trying to be careful. But again so? Look I get on a quiet road a person alone getting pulled over by an unmarked and approached by a plainclothes officer should be concerned. Do the whole blinker until well lighted thing or call dispatch or whatever. This is a different situation and while I can excuse the girls panicking, it is not what people need to be concerned about. There are no groups of impersonators with females roaming grocery store parking lots. Tell me about one ever! This is not the situation to be concerned about. And the argument you make is also more emotional than logical. So you can't "identify" what the badge is. As if they would know every patch on a uniform? An extra 100 bucks and a impersonator can get a uniform easy enough so why not ignore uniformed cops too? It's like everything should be dumbed down for the slowest kid in class but instead it's the whole world not just the school. The problem is the more we dumb down our enforcement to protect those who can't be bothered to think for themselves the easier we make it for bad guys.