Posted on 12/31/2002 2:57:48 PM PST by EBUCK
I happen to live right around the corner from where the raid took place, and I have been here for three years. Right there at Westheimer and Dunvale, where there is a Wal-Mart directly across the street. That's where the K-Mart in question is.
FACT: Large amounts of people had been gathering in the K-mart parking lot on late Friday and Saturday nights.
FACT: Residents in the apartment complex had called the police on many occasions over the past months preceding the raid, citing loud music, alcohol consumption, drunken behavior, and vandalism.
FACT: People had also complained to K-Mart store employees, in which, for whatever reason, nothing was done.
FACT: Those arrested, over 200 in number, all claimed to be paying customers of K-Mart and the nearby Sonic.
FACT: However, during the raid, people were seen running to the Sonic in an attempt to evade arrest.
FACT: If the assertion they were all customers were correct, there would be a similar number of people at the Wal-Mart across the street at that time (12:30 am). There was not.
FACT: Charges were dropped against those arrested only at the behest of the acting police chief.
The reason those people were arrested is because they were engaging in criminal behavior, which was the only reason why they were there in the first place.
Stick with what you know, get educated about the rest, or just shut the hell up.
I agree there was a real problem there that needed a solution. But your defending this idiocy is ridiculous.
Nope. That is an opinion. It is what you believe.
It's worse than that, Bob. No one was committing the offense of criminal trespass, because the property owners had not filed a complaint. The Houston police effectively fabricated the the charge by posting their own "no trespassing" signs without the consent of the property owners. I think it would be interesting to see the actual indictments for official oppression, because I suspect this last issue figures prominently.
Even presuming that other crimes were being committed or had just been committed by some subset of those arrested, no one was arrested for any crime other than criminal trespass (aside from a small percentage of juveniles violating curfew). Since they were instead arrested on charges that could not be substantiated, the charges were dismissed.
Had the adults been arrested for different offenses that could actually be substantiated in court, there would have been no reason to dismiss the charges. The police claim to have been conducting surveillance in the weeks leading up to and just before the arrests, so why wasn't anyone arrested for other crimes that were observed to be committed?
The next Mayor and his administration is going to be saddled with tremendous debt run up by the current disaster of a Mayor. They will have to also play catch up with all of the neglected city services. They don't need another disaster like this in their future.
I've read of the dispute, but so far the hard evidence has been lacking. While the original plan was known by Bradford, the original plan did not include mass arrests. There was a series of "dueling press releases" by Bradford's office and Aguirre's attorney involving conflicting memos, but I don't remember the details without going back through the archives.
Bradford has his own set of credibility problems, but in this case it appears that he was simply not exercising sufficient authority/control over this particular officer. Given their past history, I suspect Bradford just kept Aguirre at arm's length for fear of provoking another confrontation. An interesting question is whether Bradford intentionally gave Aguirre enough rope to figuratively hang himself.
And so is yours.
When ALL charges are being dropped on ALL PEOPLE INVOLVED, it's obvious they goofed big time. That is what I "believe".
Not only is that also an opinion, it is also illogical. If everyone claims to be innocent (which is the case here), does that mean you do not arrest anyone? And just how can you tell who is innocent and who is not? Are they wearing signs?
That is the American way.
If that is the American way, then it is no wonder other countries are laughing at us.
QUESTION: how many of the citations issued at this particular "party" were for any of these things. What's that you say? None?
It wouldn't be the first time that war powers were ceded back to us but I don't think it'll happen this time. The attack was carefully pigeon holed in such a way as to seem to neccessitate a OHS and Pat Act etc.. I'm afraid that TIPS is here to stay along with the rest.
Well written page, I must say. I'm going to start digging thru your archives.
EBUCK
I know that I'm following up a second time to your post, but I started thinking about this very issue.
I agree that $165,000 is a bargain. If it discourages just a handful of additional civil suits for false arrest, or encourages a few current plaintiffs to drop theirs, it will have been a good investment.
But to me, the "big flap" is the significance of any offer to pay for expungement of the arrests. It means that the city of Houston is essentially admitting that there was no probable cause for the criminal trespass arrests. This has bearing on two fronts: the indictments of Aguirre and Wentzel for official oppression, and the tort actions on behalf of 60 or so people that were arrested.
First, the indictments: this admission effectively settles the question of whether the arrests were legal. So, the remaining question is whether Aguirre and Wentzel knew the arrests were not legal. This is a very difficult standard to meet, as you have to essentially prove malice and/or forethought. It isn't good enough to establish they "should have known", as ignorance of the law or the facts is a defense for law enforcement officers under these circumstances. A momentary decision under pressure that turns out to be a mistake is also not sufficient reason for a criminal prosecution. Such mistakes are subject to administrative sanctions, but a criminal prosecution is only used in response to the most serious violations.
We will undoubtably read about the evidence during the trial, but one issue that I believe will figure prominently is the bogus "No Trespassing" signs that were posted by the Houston police without the permission of the property owner. This was publicized within a few days of the arrests, but there hasn't been any further (media) discussion about it. The reason I believe it is important is that it could demonstrate pre-meditation: i.e. the trap was laid in order to arrest everyone for criminal trespass, even though the property owners had not actually made a complaint about trespassing. This would establish that the arrests were not inadvertant mistakes: they were the culmination of a pre-established plan.
Second, the civil tort actions: by making this offer to pay for expungement, the city is admitting error. The remaining question is whether the city was negligent. The answer to that question will only determine the amount of damages.
Personally, I expect few of these cases to go to court. Given the city's pre-emptive actions, I believe they will offer significant settlements to everyone, because they know that going in front of a jury would be disastrous. We'll know the aggregate amount (because it will be difficult to hide that amount in the city's budget), but the individual amounts will probably remain confidential as a condition of the settlement.
The only cases that will go to court will be those making unreasonable demands. Someone with significant financial backing may hold out just so they can go to court and publicly air all the city's dirty laundry. It would be an interesting trial, but probably not very lucrative.
I know of a case where a person was arrested and jailed for, as the officer stated later, "interrupting my dinner" (he was freeloading at a resturant). The person made many court appearances for which his lawyer's meter was running. Each time the prosecutor either had some excuse for continuing or the charges were increased. Eventually the charge was assault on a peace officer with a deadly weapon which carries a life sentence. After going broke trying to defend himself this person finally pleaded guilty to something like disorderly conduct. There is no question that they could have beaten the charge if they could have afforded to go to trial. The officer got off free for his misconduct and the prosecutor got a conviction for his resume. The Judge also cleared another case to brag about. The only loser was justice and the victim.
ANSWER: You are asking the wrong person. Who you should be asking is the HPD, or Christine McDonald, since she knew enough about the prior complaints to mention it in her op-ed piece in the Comical.
You have my response. It is #49. Have a good day.
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.