So what? Kids have been doing that, for forty years.
Posted on 06/16/2003 10:36:36 AM PDT by Dog Gone
After two weeks of testimony, jurors cleared fired Houston police Capt. Mark Aguirre of all wrongdoing in what prosecutors called a bungled raid that netted 278 arrests in a Kmart parking lot but no charges that would stick.
Aguirre was tried on five misdemeanor charges of official oppression. Each carried up to a year in jail and a $4,000 fine.
In closing arguments Friday morning, prosecutor Tommy La Fon said the Aug. 18 raid in the 8400 block of Westheimer was originally designed as a legitimate HPD crackdown on illegal and dangerous street racing.
But under Aguirre, he said, it turned into "a cattle-herding operation" with people -- many Kmart and Sonic Drive-In customers -- being arrested en masse for simply being there.
But defense attorney Terry Yates said higher-ups, including Police Chief C.O. Bradford, ducked the heat when arrestees and their parents started complaining.
Yates said jurors should ask themselves whether Aguirre would have been charged if Bradford had stood behind him.
"They (prosecutors) didn't show Capt. Aguirre was guilty and they didn't show those officers did anything wrong," Yates said.
He suggested that several arrestees may have colored their testimony since they have sued the city for damages. "Money makes people do strange things," he said.
Several officers in the police chain of command testified that the officially approved operation included safeguards to protect the innocent. Undercover police would mingle with the crowd and identify lawbreakers to be arrested later in the raid, the witnesses said, and others would be sent home.
Instead, they said, Aguirre decided to make mass arrests for attempted trespassing, the lowest level of misdemeanor. The undercover officers handed out cards identifying a few people as customers of the all-night Kmart and nearby Sonic Drive-In, but everyone else was rounded up.
Yates argued that Aguirre had authority to change the approved plan when no street racing was found, and that his bosses knew about the changes.
The late-night crowds had been gathering at the site for six years, drinking, using drugs, gambling on races, and accelerating dangerously to spin car tires and generate smoke, Yates said.
He noted that "no trespassing" signs were posted and that crowds would typically scatter if a patrol car drove up. "These people knew they shouldn't be there," he said.
Yates called Aguirre a distinguished and effective officer whose entire life is police work.
Many, if not most, of the detainees were arrested but without any evidence of having committed any of these crimes - for example, people who had merely purchased a dinner at the Sonic burger joint.
What in the heck is that? How do you *attempt* to trespass? Either is you is, or is you ain't...
I'm sure there will be a follow-up story where jurors are interviewed.
What the hell kind of bogus legal argument is this?
"Now ask yourselves, would Clinton have been impeached if Starr had cleared him of wrongdoing after all and stood behind him?"
Talk about turning a liability into an asset... Police Chief Bradford failed to "stand behind" Aguirre precisely *because* the Chief felt that Aguirre's actions were indefensible.
On Houston talk radio in the aftermath of this debacle, many Houston police officers called in to give their stories about how out of control Aguirre had been for so many years.
According to at least two I heard, he had friends in high places who protected him after each of his "over the line" actions, and one officer speculated that he had been put in charge of this particular operation specifically so that he would have an opportunity to screw up so publicly that not even his highly placed friends could save him.
The cops there at the scene didn't support it, the police department didn't support it, the City Attorney dropped all charges and expunged the arrest records, and the District Attorney pressed charges against the two captains involved.
Somehow, Aguirre beat the charges. His partner in crime, Captain Wenzel, still faces charges, and we'll have to see how this unexpected development affects his upcoming trial on the same charges.
Whether this saves the city money in damage awards is up to subsequent juries in the civil cases, but this certainly sends the wrong message to both police and the community.
Jurors cleared fired Houston Police Capt. Mark Aguirre of all wrongdoing today in what prosecutors called a bungled raid that netted 278 arrests in a Kmart parking lot but no charges that would stick.
Testimony had dragged on two weeks in the trial of Aguirre, who was charged with five misdemeanor counts of official oppression. Each carried up to a year in jail and a $4,000 fine.
Forewoman Elaine Sayers said the jury, which began deliberating Friday, was unable to find evidence Aguirre tried to arrest anyone illegally.
"It was very hard," she said. "In reading the charges, we had to show intent on his part to make an illegal arrest."
Outside the courhouse, Aguierre was ebullient.
"I just want to thank God. I want to thank the jury. I just want to thank my lawyer," he said, planting a kiss on the cheek of attorney Terry Yates.
"It's a great victory for the Houston Police Department also," Aguirre said. "We went out there with the welfare of the city in mind."
Asked what he thinks of the department's command staff -- which Yates contended had approved the mass arrests and left Aguirre twisting in the wind when an uproar followed -- Aguirre declined to answer.
"I don't want to cast stones," he said. "I'm just very happy. I don't want to talk bad about anybody."
He would not say whether he wants to return to the Houston Police Department. Yates said he filed an appeal with the city Civil Service Commission shortly after Aguirre was fired.
Asked about the next step in his life, Aguirre quipped, "I'm gonna run for mayor. I want to fix potholes."
Aguirre still faces about 40 lawsuits stemming from the raid, Yates said.
Prosecutor Vic Wisner said District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal will have to decide whether to proceed with the trial of Sgt. Ken Wenzel, who faces charges similar to Aguirre's and has resigned from the force.
Although 32 HPD officers and staff members were disciplined as a result of the Aug. 18 raid, only Aguirre and Wenzel were charged.
In view of the acquittal, Wisner said, "You sure have to think about it a little."
Wisner and fellow prosecutor Tommy La Fon told jurors that the raid in the 8400 block of Westheimer originally was designed as a legitimate crackdown on illegal and dangerous street racing.
But under Aguirre, La Fon said, it turned into "a cattle-herding operation" with people -- many of them Kmart and Sonic Drive-In customers -- being arrested en masse for simply being there.
Several officers in the chain of command testified that the operation, as officially approved by Assistant Chief Charles McClelland, included safeguards to protect the innocent. Undercover police would mingle with the crowd and identify lawbreakers to be arrested later in the raid, and others would be sent home.
Instead, prosecutors contended, Aguirre decided to make mass arrests on charges of attempted trespassing, the lowest level of misdemeanor. The undercover officers handed out cards identifying a few people as customers of the all-night Kmart and nearby Sonic Drive-In, but everyone else was rounded up.
The late-night crowds had been gathering at the site for six years, drinking, using drugs, gambling on races and accelerating dangerously to spin car tires and generate smoke, Yates said.
He noted that "no trespassing" signs were posted and that crowds would typically scatter if a patrol car drove up.
"These people knew they shouldn't be there," he said.
Yates called Aguirre a distinguished and effective officer whose entire life is police work.
Hmmmm, I thought the prosecutor was supposed to "show intent", not the jury. The jury just has to believe him.
I wonder if the jury forewoman was deliberately mis-informed, or if she was just a dofus.
Not necessarily. Before a civil action for deprivation of rights under color of law can commence, it must first be demonstrated that other courses of legal action under state statutes or channels have been unsuccessful or blocked.
Now they've opened the door for a whole flood of Section 1983 actions, including the possibility of a RICO suit that could result in the designation of the Houston P.D. as a continuing criminal gang activity as a gang of armed felons.
-archy-/-
Planting bogus "No Trespassing" signs implies intent.
Changing the plan from the written one approved in advance implies intent.
The very fact of indiscriminate arrests implies intent.
The opposite conclusion is absurd. This juror believes that Aguirre didn't intend to make these illegal arrests. It was an accident.
You've got that right. I am an expert on Section. 1983 and RICO law and cases. In the end, a sham prosecution could lead to far greater damages and possible later charges against the prosecutor. Wouldn't be easy to win against the prosecutor, but there may be a cause of action thee as well.
You've got that right. I am an expert on Section. 1983 and RICO law and cases. In the end, a sham prosecution could lead to far greater damages and possible later charges against the prosecutor. Wouldn't be easy to win against the prosecutor, but there may be a cause of action thee as well.
I can't claim specific legal expertise, but I've covered a few as a newsman, and was called as a witness in one.
I suspect, though, that rather than naming a *poor-pockets* prosecutor as a defendent, the way to go would be to name him as a witness...and subpoena all records of any written communication or meetings he's had with Aguirre's police superiors, who should indeed be named as defendents. And if the prosecutor's involvement is shown as a result, than his county governmental level can also face potential triple damages, plus time-and-a-half legal fees from the plaintiffs' many overtime-working attorneys....
-archy-/-
Not unlikely in a state where the former Attorney General is facing federal fraud and income tax evasion charges [with the able defence of his taxpayer-funded public defender]....
-archy-/-
1) What "community?" The people living in the area? Nope. They had been calling the police ad infinitum for six months prior to the raid. The law enforcement community? Nope. I happen to know a few (my brother-in-law's sister is an HPD officer, so she has her own circle) who believed Aguirre did the right thing. The city's population? Nope. I know more than my fair share who think the same way I do. Which brings me to....
2) I think you owe me an apology. I do not care for being called a nazi for disagreeing with you, any more than you would if the show was on the other foot.
So what? Kids have been doing that, for forty years.
It's a new charge, thought up by Homeland Security.
Now, they're working on 'suspicion of conspiracy to trespass.'
Settle down, Houmatt.
You've got the same attitude to 'report abuse' that Aguirre has to the 4th Amendment.
Let me get this straight. You called the Admin Moderator's attention to this statement, and want an apology.
Everybody in the community believed that Aguirre had gone way over the line with what he did that night, except for a few nazis who would have been even more pleased if he had gunned the people down or crushed them with tanks.
I didn't mention you in that statement, nor have I previously addressed you in this thread, or any other thread in months. The fact that you throw yourself into the group I was chastizing speaks volumes.
As I have pointed out to you several times in the past, I do not dispute that the crowds there were a problem to residents in the area. They clearly were. Any illegal activity can be addressed on an individual basis, and should be.
The fact that some people in the neighborhood complained does not justify any conceivable police reaction. There are limits. Legal activity that you or your friends don't like must be tolerated. And the innocent must not be snared along with the undesirables in a despicable police action like this.
He can try, of course. But there was a finding that he violated department policy, which is independent of any criminal activity. His suit would have to be based on an accusation that he wasn't fired according to existing policy, and that would be a stretch.
No court is going to hold that you can't fire a police officer until he is convicted of a crime.
Planting bogus "No Trespassing" signs implies intent.
Changing the plan from the written one approved in advance implies intent.
The very fact of indiscriminate arrests implies intent.
The fact that he changed the plan when it was clear the people they wanted to arrest weren't going to be there should have been enough of a warning.
Going into the Sonic area where people were eating in their cars (imagine that!) or nailing people as they are walking out of K-Mart with receipts and bags in hand should have caused all kinds of warning bells to go off with the jury. I would love to know exactly what was said about Aguirre as far as character and the like, as well as how the arrests themselves were portrayed.
I hope he loses all 40 or so civil suits filed against him, and I hope it sends a sign to law enforcement across the nation that if they decide to start rounding people up for no reason (other than being customers of an establishment) they are going to be in deep ****.
And the DA should have laid out the case in terms that no reasonable juror could misunderstand. That would have punished the guilty instead of the innocent (taxpayers) and sent the right message.
As has been the case from the start with the incident, everything has gone wrong.
I didn't mention you in that statement, nor have I previously addressed you in this thread, or any other thread in months. The fact that you throw yourself into the group I was chastizing speaks volumes.
Don't play games with me, pal. I have lived long enough to know when somebody is pulling my leg, and you just about have it out of my socket.
Let's look at what you meant, in plain English, bearing in mind you have yet to tell me just exactly what you meant by "community.":
Everybody thinks Aguirre did something wrong, and everyone who does not is a nazi.
This is exactly how I see it, this is how I read it.
If this is what you had in mind, since we both know damned well I do not agree with you on this, then I do not appreciate being called a nazi and I demand an apology.
If this is not what you had mind, then you offended me because that is the way you made it look like you were saying, and you should have been more specific, or succinct. In which case, again, you owe me an apology.
Believe it or not, Houston was outraged over the police conduct that night. That's generally speaking, of course.
There certainly are some exceptions. Here at FR, you are an exception. You are pretty much out there by your lonesome in thinking this was really a swell thing. That's fine. Your position is crystal clear to me, and here's what you don't understand: your position is unimportant to me. I've explored it, and I've discarded it. It's based on a misunderstanding of the law.
You think that every time I make a comment on this topic I'm talking to you. I'm not. I have long since given up caring what you think about this, and I'm not going to apologize just because you're offended. I was not talking to you.
Get over yourself and quit whining. You've been suspended for your remarks on this topic in the past, and your pathetic efforts to get me suspended for offending you are childish at best.
You're a jerk.
And if I know anything about myself, it's that at least I have never been dishonest or insincere with people here on Free Republic (Just ask the guy who became the recipient of the Freepmail that got my account suspended. What did it say? That's for me to know, and you to find out.). At least one cannot say if I said something wrong, I won't admit the wrong and apologize for it.
Too bad the same cannot be said of you.
And about your statement, "It's based on a misunderstanding of the law." No it's not. It's about a disregard for the facts; for either failing or just not bothering to look at and acknowledge the full picture. And perhaps that is because the facts, when presented in toto, don't work in your favor.
Twelve people did not think so, and that is enough.
The dweebs are consistent only in one respect: "If it's gubmint, it's guilty."
That's kind of funny since you're the one who was whining to Moderators, doncha think?
I don't care what you think of me. I really don't. You're a phony conservative and you're so out of touch with constitutional principles that I feel like I'm talking to an alien.
The fact that Aguirre was acquitted means only that he's not subject to criminal punishment. The same can be said of OJ Simpson. It doesn't change the fact and it doesn't change the law. You are wrong and OJ was wrong and Captain Aguirre was wrong. And that is enough for the rest of us.
That's kind of funny since you're the one who was whining to Moderators, doncha think?
I had it pulled. It was a duplicate post.
You're a phony conservative and you're so out of touch with constitutional principles that I feel like I'm talking to an alien.
I have been called a communist by TailgunnerJoe and a nazi by yourself and PatrioticAmerican. And all because I do not agree with you.
I guess this should just be considered another fine example of people who think they know me, but don't, talking right out of their ass.
And if you can show me where it says in the Constitution you have the right to disregard the law (as in your 200+ little angels), slick, then I'll give you what you are obviously not man enough to give: A public apology.
Please also understand that I could not possibly care less if you ever apologize for anything to anyone.
So what? Kids have been doing that, for forty years.
Well, not everywhere....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.