TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.khou.com/video/featured-vide ... 74081.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This was on Drudge Report this morning.

Holy moly......that is horrible!

Er...for the work blocked?

Oh my, per the Chronicle this all occurred in September 2011, and he's just now getting charged?
Only charged with a misdemeanor as well, as was promoted to Captain. Wow.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... cmpid=hpbn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This has the whole video. Much worse. I am assuming the big man who kicks the man on the ground is the one who is charged.

Sort of Constables Go Wild! It is very interesting that it took two years to bring charges and though the video is pretty telling, Drummond will have his day in court, where more than the video will be presented. I have a problem with only charging him with official oppression, which is so often the case when a LEO has committed acts for which you or I would be charged to the fullest extent possible with the maximum penalty. Any of those arrested can be charged with felony assault for even touching an officer. Official oppression is a misdemeanor. Meanwhile he was promoted to Captain???? according to one report.


TEXAS PENAL CODE

TITLE 8. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 39. ABUSE OF OFFICE

Sec. 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION. (a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;

(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or

(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.

(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.

(c) In this section, "sexual harassment" means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person's exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1217, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 16, Sec. 19.01(34), eff. Aug. 26, 1991. Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 39.02 by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Official oppression may only be a class A misdemeanour but if he is found guilty, It will make winning the lawsuit easier.

Just a thought, I wonder if the time limit to file suit has run out?

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

This has the whole video. Much worse. I am assuming the big man who kicks the man on the ground is the one who is charged.

Fat man even kicked the dog.

VoiceofReason wrote:

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

This has the whole video. Much worse. I am assuming the big man who kicks the man on the ground is the one who is charged.

Fat man even kicked the dog.

I saw that too. This guy left Harris County , though it's not noted why and became a Captain in Montgomery Count Constable ranks. If he's convicted he'll still be able to keep his job and even go to another department and get a job.

Honestly, I can see this getting by... There are much more egregious videos of LEO abuse out on the internet.

cb1000rider wrote:Honestly, I can see this getting by... There are much more egregious videos of LEO abuse out on the internet.

Only time will tell. The family has also filed a federal lawsuit against several constables, not just Drummond. All charges against the family were dropped as unwarranted in February 2012. The DA said there was no probable cause for any of their arrests. Precinct 4 Chief Deputy Sumner complained that they should have filed a compliant sooner! The father was charged with felony assault, but those charges were dropped as warrant less. There was no traffic citation ever issued, the son was charged with denting the hood of the patrol car. Drummond says he doesn't remember kicking a person, though he remembered kicking the dog. The wife was arrested for asking what was going on and for challenging the officer who told her to go inside. She told him she was on her own property, challenging his authority and was hauled into the street and subsequently manhandled as seen in the video. The sister was arrested for felony assault while videoing from the driveway of their own property and an officer was recorded saying, "Get her, she has a camera" and she was then chased and arrested and her I-phone confiscated. After reading some of the additional info I am surprised more officers haven't been charged. It was radioed that "officer needed assistance" and the family attacked the responding officers.......... only time will tell as I said.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Oh my, per the Chronicle this all occurred in September 2011, and he's just now getting charged?.

Probably right up against the statute of limitations as well considering the date then/now.

Pct4 Constables were not thought of highly when I roamed those very streets. I grew up & down that stretch of 1960. I had heard that the constables were the ones that couldn't cut it in a real PD or Sheriff office. My Mom was a paramedic in the area for a long time with those Pct4 Constables, riding with Cypress Creek EMS.

What cracks me up is how much authority Constables have in Houston vs Dallas. I've not seen one constable in Dallas area make a traffic stop. Meanwhile, in Houston, they were always the one seen policing the streets, traffic, criminal, etc . . . at least until Sheriffs arrived.

Wait constables aren't sheriffs? Can you help clarify?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Wait constables aren't sheriffs? Can you help clarify?

It was always my understanding that constables were the ones that served court papers. Being that Harris County & Pct4 & Pct5 are the TWO largest constable departments in all of the state, they have 33% of the force dedicated to patrol:

(Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_constable" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

In 2000, there were 2,630 full-time deputies and 418 reserve deputies working for the 760 constables’ offices in Texas. Of this number, 35% were primarily assigned to patrol, 33% to serving process, 12% to court security, and 7% to criminal investigations. The Harris County Precinct 4 and 5 Constables’ Offices are the largest constables’ offices in Texas with over 300 deputies each.[4]

Constables may make a warrantless arrest for any offense committed in their presence or view anywhere in Texas, except for offenses under Texas Transportation Code, Title 7, Subtitle C, which covers most moving traffic violations.[6] However, they may enforce all state and local laws while in their county, including traffic offenses. Constables may serve arrest warrants anywhere in Texas.

Finally, constables and their deputies in Texas are official, certified Texas law-enforcement officers. Constables and their deputies must graduate from a state-certified law enforcement academy. All peace officers in Texas are trained to the same state requirement. Constables also have identical powers of arrest as county sheriffs and their deputies.

Beyond that, I think the confusion is them being called "deputies", but really "constable deputy", vs "sheriff deputy".

LAYGO wrote:What cracks me up is how much authority Constables have in Houston vs Dallas.

I guess from reading that wiki, Dallas area counties must not dedicate many constables to patrol.