Posted on 02/25/2014 5:19:11 AM PST by servo1969
Austin, Texas Police Chief Art Acevedo was asked to defend the actions of his officers, who subdued and arrested a jogging woman because she was wearing earbuds and couldn’t hear their instructions. His response to the controversy was this: It could be worse–at least she wasn’t sexually assaulted.
That response upset many Texas residents, and Acevedo was forced to walk back his comments on Monday.
Austin police arrested the jogging woman last week. They were stationed at an intersection near the University of Texas’s Austin campus, giving jaywalking tickets to dozens of people. The woman ran right past them, unable to hear because of her earbuds. Cops pursued and restrained the confused woman, eventually placing her in a squad car and charging her failure to carry identification and violating a traffic signal.
The incident was recorded by an innocent bystander, who turned the footage over to local news. That bystander, Chris Quintero, said the police behaved badly. Many Texans agreed.
But when asked to comment on the situation, Acevedo said that his officers hadn’t behaved nearly as badly as officers around the country who are routinely caught committing sexual assault.
“Cops are actually committing sexual assaults on duty so I thank God that this is what passes for a controversy in Austin, Texas,” he said according to CNN.
He also praised the “mediocrity” of the Austin police department.
“And I’m glad that I’m here having to address mediocrity,” he said.
It was a comparison that Acevedo soon regretted, and on Monday, he apologized and said his choice of words had been poor.
“During the press conference I attempted to place the arrest into context by bringing attention to the fact that law enforcement deals with many acts of serious misconduct,” he said. “This includes recent instances in the news of sexual assault by police officers in other cities. In hindsight I believe the comparison was a poor analogy, and for this I apologize.”
While the comparison may not have been an apt or flattering one for Austin police, it is nevertheless true.
Hey, it ain't like we raped her. What's the problem?
In fact, what's your name, Question Guy?
You live around here, buddy? Where are you going?
I said, what's your name?
You got any ID? Show me your hands.
I said SHOW ME YOUR F---ING HANDS! (4-87, requesting backup)
GET ON THE GROUND!
DO THAT AGAIN AND I'M GONNA LIGHT YOU UP!
I SAID... TASER! TASER! bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz STOP RESISTING! bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Nicely done. Send it out.
At least she didn’t have a dog with her for them to shoot...
Just another California transplant working for other morons in the city of Austin. He is a tool. I know many guys working there and moral is in the crapper since they all know he is 100% in the tank for the liberal city council.
English as a second language.
After all the adverse publicity, she had better not go anywhere without full video and friends at any time. Next time it could be planted dime bags or a “misunderstanding” that gets her shot by the local police.
“...They were stationed at an intersection near the University of Texas’s Austin campus, giving jaywalking tickets to dozens of people.”
Is THIS ‘protecting and serving’???
I used to be all for our police not too many years ago, feeling that there were a few bad apples here and there. Today, I feel it’s completely the opposite. That, except for a few good honest cops, the force is entirely corrupt and just about as useful as another street gang.
What happened to America when a woman cannot JOG in her town? Good thing she didn’t have a dog with her.
Someone list the states where you have a duty to resist unlawful arrest.
He needs to be fired.
Today.
Why? For what he said or something else?
For his attitude.
If Texans have any salt left in them, this jackass should be left just across the border in New Mexico, with naught but his boots and breeches, and told to “Git! And don’t come back!”
Technically, all of them.
John Bad Elk v. United States - 177 U.S. 529 (1900)
“Instead of saying that plaintiff in error had the right to use such force as was absolutely necessary to resist an attempted illegal arrest, the jury were informed that the policemen had the right to use all necessary force to arrest him, and that he had no right to resist. He, of course, had no right to unnecessarily injure, much less to kill, his assailant; but where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction when the officer had the right to make the arrest from what it does if the officer had no such right. What might be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
Page 177 U. S. 538
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/177/529/case.html
In uniform, clowning it up. Check.
I knew it wouldn’t take long for the boot-lickers to get on this thread! *waves*
Is it really against the law not to carry identification on your person at all times? I never carry an ID while out running.
Failure to carry ID?!
“show me your papers Worm!!!”
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.