TexasCHLforum.com

VoiceofReason wrote:The solution is for officers to conduct themselves in a professional manner or, after something like this, go around and check everyone’s cell phone in sight.

And then what???

It's APD so maybe he should count himself lucky they didn't shoot him, move somewhere else, and put this behind him.

My only real input on this topic is that I like living in Fort Worth just fine, and Austin is on my list of places to NOT look for a job, for several reasons, one of which is too high of a "drama factor" there.

OldCurlyWolf wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Somebody spit on me once on duty. I have to say it was an unwise decision...

I had that happen, Once. He became extremely compliant by the time we had made the trip to the jail.

The point is that he did not spit on the officer. The officer never wiped his face as he swore to in his official reports, and speech does not constitute interfering. Keep in mind, APD and the DA initially charged him with a felony of harassment of a public official (spitting on a cop) that was all predicated on a falsified statement which was made prior to the emergence of a bystander's video surfacing. Had there not been evidence to prove Buehler's innocence, this "peace officer" would have used his position of trust in the community in an attempt to ruin someone's life and livelihood. A felony would preclude him from doing what we here all hold so dear; protecting ourselves and exercising our right to possess/bear arms. All over one cop's lies?

I'd like to think the liberty-minded, Constitution loving bunch here on this forum wouldn't consider such abuse of power to be just. Let's recall the actual purpose of the 2A: to ensure the citizenry are not held subservient to the state.

lbuehler325 wrote:

OldCurlyWolf wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Somebody spit on me once on duty. I have to say it was an unwise decision...

I had that happen, Once. He became extremely compliant by the time we had made the trip to the jail.

The point is that he did not spit on the officer. The officer never wiped his face as he swore to in his official reports, and speech does not constitute interfering. Keep in mind, APD and the DA initially charged him with a felony of harassment of a public official (spitting on a cop) that was all predicated on a falsified statement which was made prior to the emergence of a bystander's video surfacing. Had there not been evidence to prove Buehler's innocence, this "peace officer" would have used his position of trust in the community in an attempt to ruin someone's life and livelihood. A felony would preclude him from doing what we here all hold so dear; protecting ourselves and exercising our right to possess/bear arms. All over one cop's lies?

I'd like to think the liberty-minded, Constitution loving bunch here on this forum wouldn't consider such abuse of power to be just. Let's recall the actual purpose of the 2A: to ensure the citizenry are not held subservient to the state.

I've already made my opinion known about your brother, but I hope he's learned his lesson that he made a poor decision, and it will cost him for doing so. He wanted to get himself involved in a situation, and they obliged. If he did such an outstanding job, why is this not an issue about the female and her treatment? Because that's a NON-ISSUE! No, it's an issue about the treatment of him. He made a story, and he is getting one. Now it's "me, me, me!"

Picking up a person by the arms is a compliance movement. When someone doesn't want to do what you want, you add a little pressure on the arms. Some people can almost pull those arms over their heads backwards before they even start to feel it. It keeps you from having to put your hands all over a female; or anyone, for that matter, because some women (particularly when drunk) will yell rape with the specific intent of getting people to intervene. How thoughtful that he intervened during an arrest though; so now they are dealing with someone they do not know already, but then they have to watch their backs because someone else wants to join the party without an invitation.

Chris wrote:

lbuehler325 wrote:

OldCurlyWolf wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Somebody spit on me once on duty. I have to say it was an unwise decision...

I had that happen, Once. He became extremely compliant by the time we had made the trip to the jail.

The point is that he did not spit on the officer. The officer never wiped his face as he swore to in his official reports, and speech does not constitute interfering. Keep in mind, APD and the DA initially charged him with a felony of harassment of a public official (spitting on a cop) that was all predicated on a falsified statement which was made prior to the emergence of a bystander's video surfacing. Had there not been evidence to prove Buehler's innocence, this "peace officer" would have used his position of trust in the community in an attempt to ruin someone's life and livelihood. A felony would preclude him from doing what we here all hold so dear; protecting ourselves and exercising our right to possess/bear arms. All over one cop's lies?

I'd like to think the liberty-minded, Constitution loving bunch here on this forum wouldn't consider such abuse of power to be just. Let's recall the actual purpose of the 2A: to ensure the citizenry are not held subservient to the state.

I've already made my opinion known about your brother, but I hope he's learned his lesson that he made a poor decision, and it will cost him for doing so. He wanted to get himself involved in a situation, and they obliged. If he did such an outstanding job, why is this not an issue about the female and her treatment? Because that's a NON-ISSUE! No, it's an issue about the treatment of him. He made a story, and he is getting one. Now it's "me, me, me!"

Picking up a person by the arms is a compliance movement. When someone doesn't want to do what you want, you add a little pressure on the arms. Some people can almost pull those arms over their heads backwards before they even start to feel it. It keeps you from having to put your hands all over a female; or anyone, for that matter, because some women (particularly when drunk) will yell rape with the specific intent of getting people to intervene. How thoughtful that he intervened during an arrest though; so now they are dealing with someone they do not know already, but then they have to watch their backs because someone else wants to join the party without an invitation.

I also dispute whether or not he spit on the officer. Many "good" people do stupid things, and spitting on cops is something people do. It is very disgusting to be the recipient of that. Based on what I saw and his actions, it could be possible that he did that. That is irrelevant now since the grand jury allegedly has dropped that charge. That still doesn't prove one way or another whether he did it. It just means they are not charging him. I have repeatedly stated film all you want, but don't interfere.

texanjoker wrote:
I also dispute whether or not he spit on the officer. Many "good" people do stupid things, and spitting on cops is something people do. It is very disgusting to be the recipient of that. Based on what I saw and his actions, it could be possible that he did that. That is irrelevant now since the grand jury allegedly has dropped that charge. That still doesn't prove one way or another whether he did it. It just means they are not charging him. I have repeatedly stated film all you want, but don't interfere.

There is no dispute about the spit. The third party video evidence clearly shows the officer never wiped his face, as he swore to. Six witnesses testified under oath that there was no spit. The officer clearly lied. It's quite simple really. Either you believe one version of the story on the grounds that a person's occupation makes them 'honest', or you can independently evaluate the facts and evidence. But, I think you are missing the point. It isn't about agreeing with one man's opinion. It's about another's ability to arbitrarily harm others with violence, threat of violence, or lies, and being able to get away with it.

I admit it. When I first heard about his arrest, and the allegations, I thought, "well, he must have let his emotions get the best of him, and spit on a cop". But when I saw the video, all that changed. If a cop lies under oath to "punish" somebody, he is no longer serving the community. When others justify those actions with full knowledge that doing so is wrong, they no longer can credibly claim any moral standing. If a cop is a liar, and a bully, he or she really doesn't need to in a position to harm others with his or her arbitrary lies.

lbuehler325 wrote:
There is no dispute about the spit. The third party video evidence clearly shows the officer never wiped his face, as he swore to. Six witnesses testified under oath that there was no spit. The officer clearly lied. It's quite simple really. Either you believe one version of the story on the grounds that a person's occupation makes them 'honest', or you can independently evaluate the facts and evidence. But, I think you are missing the point. It isn't about agreeing with one man's opinion. It's about another's ability to arbitrarily harm others with violence, threat of violence, or lies, and being able to get away with it.

You can see a small wad of spit (or lack thereof) on that horrible quality video? Kudos to you, man. I can't even make out faces.

lbuehler325 wrote: When others justify those actions with full knowledge that doing so is wrong, they no longer can credibly claim any moral standing.

I agree. Your brother should take note of that for next time he tries to do something stupid. Your brother made a mistake. Live and learn. So what? APD doesn't seem too terribly interested in pursuing it much, although, I think they should.

Chris wrote:

lbuehler325 wrote:
There is no dispute about the spit. The third party video evidence clearly shows the officer never wiped his face, as he swore to. Six witnesses testified under oath that there was no spit. The officer clearly lied. It's quite simple really. Either you believe one version of the story on the grounds that a person's occupation makes them 'honest', or you can independently evaluate the facts and evidence. But, I think you are missing the point. It isn't about agreeing with one man's opinion. It's about another's ability to arbitrarily harm others with violence, threat of violence, or lies, and being able to get away with it.

You can see a small wad of spit (or lack thereof) on that horrible quality video? Kudos to you, man. I can't even make out faces.

lbuehler325 wrote: When others justify those actions with full knowledge that doing so is wrong, they no longer can credibly claim any moral standing.

I agree. Your brother should take note of that for next time he tries to do something stupid. Your brother made a mistake. Live and learn. So what? APD doesn't seem too terribly interested in pursuing it much, although, I think they should.

Nobody can see any spit on the video; this is true. You know what else isn't on the video? The part where the officer says he wiped the spit off his face (because he lied about that happening). You know what else is conspicuously missing from the video? The part where Buehler got into the officer's face. From the video evidence that surfaced (remember, APD never released the dash cam footage that they said would show what Buehler did, only to later acknowledge that there was no evidence to support any of Officer Oborski's claims against Buehler), I'm not really certain how Buehler physically approached and got in the face of the officer when it clearly shows him leaning half backwards over the tailgate of a Tacoma with the officer poking his finger in his chest.

But it's clear that I will be unable to convince most of you that my brother clearly had his rights violated that night and that the officers clearly abused their power, just as it's clear that I will not be convinced that all cops are automatically moral and just, simply by wearing a badge. By the way, the 'lesson' you guys speak of for his ill-advised approach to dealing with what he perceived as injustice would be a felony conviction, and the stripping of his basic rights as a citizen (gun ownership, voting)? Seriously? With that, I'd like to conclude my $0.02 on the subject. Enjoy your night all. Hopefully the follow-up comments won't drag me back into this.