--------------------
HPD sources familiar with the investigation said Officer Mike Hamby, 51, then admitted to that senior ranking HPD officer that he had set off the tear gas to retaliate against people inside that tent, whom Hamby felt had made remarks against the military. Hamby's admission to the senior ranking officer is included as part of the HPD Internal Affairs Division investigation, according to sources. Hamby could not be reached for comment by phone or e-mail. "I just hope the officer realizes what he did and has to pay for the actions he committed," said the witness. Hamby became a Houston police officer in December 1980, most recently assigned to the Burglary and Theft Division. He was relieved of duty with pay, with the department saying he is accused of criminal wrongdoing. An elected board member of the Houston Police Officers' Union, Hamby wrote on his online profile that he served 10 years as a Marine reservist. His profile also mentioned that he "loves hunting and barbecuing." He wrote that he serves on the union's barbecue team, as well as another group comprised mostly of military personnel. Sources close to the Internal Affairs case told Local 2 Investigates that
Hamby was attending the party inside a tent known as "Pits and Spits." Several amputees and military veterans were being honored at an event in that tent when Hamby reportedly said he heard others in a neighboring booth bad-mouthing the military, according to the Internal Affairs complaint.
----------------------------
So... how does this new information change your perception of the incident?
Frankly, I could not care any less what Hamby says he heard. He is a cruel man. Even if every person said offensive things, he went to the even with the can in his pocket, fully prepared to injure as many people as possible.
You want to hear people in a tent bad-mouthing the military, sit in on a Hearts game with a bunch of E2-E4s.
The other story doesn't change my mind. Let the vets make the call on whether to prosecute or not.
/johnny
Rated "/s" for the irony impaired
Pathetic defense, man.
And you believe this moron was somehow justified after you reading a white washed version emanating from his buddies in and out of the IA division? You must have been his side kick. The (former) officer committed a despicable and cowardly act no matter how he (or you) tries to justify it. As a 100+ disabled purple heart veteran I loathe this imbecile and his actions and find this man to be a total moron deserving of my and every other combat veteran's contempt and of what he is getting for his despicable act!
It doesn't.
I still don't read anything that justifies Hamby's use of a tear gas "crowd dispersant" on a tent full of 60-80 people.
Hamby's in Tent #1 with a group of people including military veterans, such of whom were amputees. God Bless the veterans, and I say that sincerely and with a lump in my throat for those injured warriors.
Hamby overhears some people in Tent #2 say things that he "felt" "bad-mouthed" the military. We don't know whether he spoke with the people in Tent #2 (the article doesn't say whether he did), or contact Houston Livestock Fair & Rodeo security. We know he didn't honor the First Amendment Rights of those in Tent #2 (even jerks have First Amendment Rights). You know, the rights that the veterans fought to preserve for the people in Tent #2?
Instead, Hamby lobs a tear gas crowd dispersant into Tent #2, affecting 60-80 people in Tent #2.
So, no, it doesn't change my perception. I don't think you have a right to tear gas people who bad-mouth the military, even within earshot of veterans who lost a limb in serving our combat. I don't think you have a right to tear gas people who happen to be in the vicinity of those who bad-mouthed the military.
Call me a bleeding heart, I guess.
The guy was drunk - therefore his perceptions and judgement were both impared. And even IF he heard the military being badmouthed - he is still clearly wrong for tossing a tear gas grenade into their midst.
“So... how does this new information change your perception of the incident? “
Why do you suppose that the officer’s version of events should automatically render him justified in unlawfully tear-gassing citizens who have committed no crime?
>>So... how does this new information change your perception of the incident?<<
It shows that the guy was an a-hole and an idiot, and showed what a dangerous nutcase he is. In other words, the same opinion as before.
And I have the same opinion as before, that there would be jackboot-licking idiots coming on this thread to defend this buffoon.
In your mind, is this imbecile some kind of hero?
It makes me want to beat the living sh** out of this idiot. How about you?