Posted on 12/31/2002 2:57:48 PM PST by EBUCK
The Houston Chronicle has quoted former Chief Bradford that 273 people were arrested for criminal trespass and elsewhere stated that 42 of those were juveniles.
One of the first articles published said that the juveniles were also cited for curfew violations, but I wasn't able to dig that up in a quick search.
No, I don't know, and I can't without asking the aforementioned parties. You don't know either. So stop pretending.
But we all know that suspended Chief Bradford lies when it suits him. Unless some of these false arrest suits go to trial I doubt that we will ever hear the full story of how this went down. Don't forget that there was a previous smaller scale version of this same thing a week or so before at another location. Just didn't get the publicity because of the smaller scale.
You prove that they were charged with the things you allege occurred, or give it up. The burden of proof is on YOU.
My only goal is to ensure that nobody new to the discussions is led to believe that Houmatt's position is remotely reasonable, because it's not. It's absurd and an embarrassment to this forum.
Bradford was actually amending previous police reports that 278 people were arrested for criminal trespass. Hopefully, not everyone at the police department is lying.
Unless some of these false arrest suits go to trial I doubt that we will ever hear the full story of how this went down.
Like you, I doubt that few, if any of the false arrest suits will go to trial. But, my rationale is different: I expect the city to settle out of court to avoid the risk of a huge damage award by a jury.
Don't forget that there was a previous smaller scale version of this same thing a week or so before at another location. Just didn't get the publicity because of the smaller scale.
25 people were arrested for criminal trespass at the James Coney Island the night before. The owner/operator of the business has stated that he planned to file a complaint with the Houston Police.
How stupid is it? Since I was originally talking about the behavior of people in the K-Mart parking lot that spurred complaints months before the raid took place (and I am STILL talking about that), just exactly how can you know what citations were handed out back then without asking the aforementioned parties, unless you happen to be omniscient?
Try again.
Oh, really? How about explaining that? I am curious.
There's a little detail about arresting the right people that you don't care about, and there's a little detail about the fact that no crime was actually being committed that you don't care about.
That is an embarrassment to this forum, but I don't ever expect you to recognize that.
If anyone had actually been arrested for offenses that instigated the past complaints, you might have a point.
But, no one was arrested for those offenses. Instead, everyone were arrested for an offense that was unsubstantiated. As a result, even those that may actually have been committing another offense walked away. And now the city is even offering to foot the bill for expunging those arrests.
Police cannot arrest someone for an offense that wasn't committed today because one may have been committed in the past. So no, the past isn't relevant in this case.
Standing department policy, actually.
A few police officers made anonymous statements to the press shortly after this happened, and a few Freepers reported call-in's to local talk radio shows. None of it was flattering.
Follow some of the links at the beginning of this thread and you'll find the reports.
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.