Officers brace to be fired in Kmart raid case

Houston Chronicle ^ | Jan. 25, 2003 | RACHEL GRAVES

[Houmatt]

One tow truck driver, who was alerted by his cop friends to be at that spot at that evening, in order to make several thousand dollars in towing fees is your evidence of criminal activity? What exactly would it take for you to suspect bias, anyway?

Are you actually suggesting that he triggered the raid that night involving nearly 100 officers?

Huh?

Having a scanner means "being alerted by cop friends?" The tow truck driver triggered the raid?

(rolls eyes and shakes head)

The password is: Sobriety.

(bing)

[Dog Gone]

You either won't or can't answer the questions, I see. Not surprising.

[Houmatt]

It is impossible to answer the questions because they have no basis in reality!

[Dog Gone]

Then there is really nothing left for us discuss. You do not respond substantively to my comments, and you are completely out of step with the rest of the posters here.

The District Attorney doesn't agree with you.

The Grand Jury doesn't agree with you.

The City Attorney doesn't agree with you.

It is funny that you think I'm out of touch with reality.

[Houmatt]

How much do you wanna bet 12 people will agree with me?

Like I said, they will not be convicted. If they are, they will be overturned.

As for your "comments", if you are referring to your last two posts, they were non-sequiturs, if not phantasmagorical in nature and scope.

[danelectro]

Clearly, if people in the crowd were engaged in illegal behavior such as vandalism, public intoxication or drug use, an arrest could be made whether or not the property owner complains.

But there were no arrests for that. The only arrests were for criminal trespass and curfew violations.

i've followed this from when it was first posted on fr, and this aspect has always been interesting. if there were a bunch of drunk kids out there, you know they would have been charged. ditto for finding, say several guys with more than a personal share of an illegal substance.

were the kids remarkably well behaved? did the cops just not try to nail people for that? (unlikely) am i the only one that finds this curious?

[Dog Gone]

I can think of no reason why the police wouldn't have made arrests for those things if they were present. But nobody has even hinted that drugs and alcohol were there that night. We have to assume that they weren't.

Strange as it may seem to some, the crowd that night may have been there only to flirt, be seen, and hang out with friends.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

Officers brace to be fired in Kmart raid case

Good.

[-YYZ-]

Give it up. Clearly, no matter how clearly the facts of this case are explained, some people will still side with the police. That is because they believe the police were totally correct in what they did. They believe that mass arrests of peaceful people not actually breaking any law is justified if it promotes "law and order" and runs off the scary kids. They believe planting "No Trespassing" signs and then arresting people for trespassing is OK.

What can you say? I won't call them fascists or Nazis, but I bet they would have been quite happy living in General Pinochet's Chile or Singapore. Fortunately most of us actually believe in the rule of law, legally applied in a constitutional manner.

[steve-b]

Have you ever heard of police officers being fired before they have had their day in court?

They're probably guilty as hell, but this should be properly determined through due process. I suspect that they're being thrown to the wolves to save their bosses' skins.

[steve-b]

Here are more facts that you can't seem to remember

Did Clinton teach Houmatt the art of selective memory, or did Houmatt teach him?

[Dog Gone]

The hearing later this afternoon is all about due process. The notion that a police officer may not be dismissed from the force unless he has been convicted of a crime is rather absurd.

Nobody in America has that kind of job protection.

[steve-b]

In fact, pal, that is exactly what Dog Gone said, as evidenced here

Silly Houmatt. You should have tried posting a broken link. That way, some people would have been fooled into believing that you had a case, but finger-fumbled in posting the URL. Now, everybody will know that Dog Gone actually said just the opposite of what you claimed. D'OH!

[steve-b]

Respect is a two-way street, cowboy/girl. You want it? You have to give it.

Respect is earned. Dog Gone has earned it. You have not, and indeed have actively earned contempt through your repeated clintonesque spin games.

[steve-b]

How much do you wanna bet 12 people will agree with me?

I'm sure that you can find 12 people in any loony bin who will agree with any sort of delusional nonsense.

[steve-b]

I was referring to "due process" in the more general sense (i.e. if they're being fired for cause, they should be given a chance to present their side of the story). Of course, criminal conviction is an entirely independent matter (and even administrative due process is not required for dismissal from a job if that dismissal is not "for cause").

[steve-b]

I was referring to "due process" in the more general sense (i.e. if they're being fired for cause, they should be given a chance to present their side of the story). Of course, criminal conviction is an entirely independent matter (and even administrative due process is not required for dismissal from a job if that dismissal is not "for cause").

[The FRugitive]

"Add to that that the police brought their own NO TRESPASSING signs to post when they swooped down and blocked all the exits."

Sounds like something Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane would do to try and get them Duke boys.

[steve-b]

LOL! I recall one classic exchange:

Roscoe: You boys are under arrest! [chuckle]
Luke: Arrest? What for?
Roscoe: For... for... for breakin' the law!
Bo: Roscoe, you have to be a little more specific.

[Dog Gone]

I'm actually surprised it has taken this long. These supervisors have been suspended with full pay for months now. Heck of a deal.