Posted on 06/09/2015 6:08:44 PM PDT by ScottWalkerForPresident2016
McKINNEY — The McKinney police officer whose actions at a pool party disturbance last Friday went viral in a YouTube video resigned from the force on Tuesday.
"The actions of Eric Casebolt are indefensible," police Chief Greg Conley told reporters at a news conference late Tuesday afternoon, saying the officer was "out of control during the incident."
"I had 12 officers on the scene, and 11 of them performed according to their training," Conley added.
Casebolt's resignation was confirmed about one hour earlier by attorney Jane Bishkin, who told WFAA that the decision was made after a meeting with the department's internal affairs unit to review possible charges her client could face.
(Excerpt) Read more at wfaa.com ...
....”Without an arrest, it is difficult to explain why an officer would tackle a person who was not breaking a law....
Uh?....
Resisting a direct police order is breaking the law.
“In most cases, when a police officer tackles a suspect, the person being tackled in arrested.
Without an arrest, it is difficult to explain why an officer would tackle a person who was not breaking a law.”
*******************************************************************************************************
Dufus, she was DETAINED (look it up, it will help in your education) not arrested. She was REFUSING POLICE ORDERS TO DISPERSE. Many, many people (particularly juveniles) get detained for a while and do not get arrested after police have a situation under control but are instead released (sometimes to the custody of a parent).
In Baltimore, Freddie Gray was DETAINED because of reasonable suspicion (i.e., being in a high crime area and fleeing police upon encounter). AFTER HE WAS DETAINED (including being handcuffed) he was searched and, while no drugs were found on his person, an illegal knife was found in his possession. It was only then that he was ARRESTED. So do you get it...being detained (which can include being brought down and handcuffed) does not always precede an arrest. The fact that a person is not arrested following detention does not make the detention illegal.
If that is the case, then you arrest the person for “Resisting a direct police order.”
In the McKinney incident, the officer is left in the position of tackling someone who he did not see needed to be arrested.
The PD is saying that Casebolt “Temporally Detained” the girl but no citation was written and she was not charged.
If she committed a crime, why was she not arrested and simply detained?
The PD is saying that Casebolt “Temporally Detained” the girl but no citation was written and she was not charged.
If she committed a crime, why was she not arrested and simply detained?
******************************************************************************************************
Moron, she’s a juvenile. Do you have the slightest clue as to how often cops (good cops using their discretion) temporarily detain juveniles to get a situation under control and do not follow up with an arrest.
Out of curiosity, how much does trolling pay now?
The video is quite clear that not only did she not obey a lawful order, she resisted in every possible way. Why she was not arrested has more to do with political correctness than evidence that it has suddenly become legal to resist arrest whenever you feel the cop is in the wrong.
Maybe he is just tired of blacks blaming cops for their criminal activities, lying about police, throwing rocks at cops, shooting fellow officers, and then cops being portrayed as the bad guys.
To hell with these people. If they hate whitey, cops, and the US so much, let’s separate into 2 countries. Let them take responsibility for themselves for a change.
That point is one of the few things that Malcolm X got right. He was also strong on the Second Amendment but otherwise a traitor. That said, had Marcus Garvey not been opposed by liberal do-gooders of the era, his "Back to Africa" movement of a century ago would have made America a far batter place than we have now with the Holderites now waging an all-out war against white Christians and Jews.
Your characterization of the takedown as a "tackle" has as much basis in reality as your characterization of a touch of a hand on a shoulder as "restraining".
So, you have not answered my question. This seems to be your favorite tactic, and is one practiced as a matter of course by certain types of people, you ignore the question and move on, so I will state it again, in bold because you may have missed it and it is an important question:
If a cop responds to a mob scene, in your world, is it permissible to ignore the LAWFUL, REPEATED instructions of a police officer to disperse?
Did she or did she not, in your words, “Resist a direct police order?”
Answer the question please:
Did she or did she not, in your words, “Resist a direct police order?”
Yes or no?
Did she or did she not “Resist a direct police order?”
Because to most IMPARTIAL people, he told her personally, at least THREE times to disperse and leave the scene, which she not only did NOT do, but was DELIBERATELY inflaming the situation.
So, answer the question please. Did she or did she not “Resist a direct police order?”
If she did NOT “Resist a direct police order?”, what was she doing? An order was given. Multiple times. She didn’t leave the scene.
So, if you, as an IMPARTIAL observer, must concede, that she WAS “Resisting a direct police order?”, IS THAT OR IS THAT NOT GROUNDS FOR ARREST?
Yes or No?
In YOUR world, IS THAT OR IS THAT NOT GROUNDS FOR ARREST, YES OR NO?
Please answer the question.
And by the way, please don’t resort to your circular logic of “She wasn’t arrested, so there weren’t any grounds to arrest her”.
Maybe your post has absolutely nothing to do with video exposing an unstable, hysterical cop, who doesn’t belong on the streets, and was at the Texas State Highway Patrol for such a short time, and who resigned his union position instantly, when confronted with his ‘chicken with his head cut off’ behavior.
“As the video shows, he was out of control during the incident,” Conley said, “I had 12 officers on the scene and 11 of them performed according to their training.”
Here is Mark Furhman’s analysis.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_DSU8ZP_bA
Some people resent having to bow down to a cop just because he has a badge. If a cop treats me with respect, he’ll get my respect in return. Like you said, to receive respect, one must FIRST show respect. A badge does not automatically entitle someone to respect. Bad cops prove that all the time. Like the NY Detective/biker who was just found guilty for beating up on the people in the van.
Way too many cops like to push people around. Some cops are decent people. Some are on power trips. When the cameras are rolling the smart ones act like humans. They should act that way 24/7 without a camera. I’ve seen dash cam video of some guy cursing a cop out and the cop stood there and took it. By law there was nothing he could have legally done. It’s called free speech. And since the dash cam was rolling the cop followed the constitution.
As for this teenage girl? She was interfering. The cop wanted nothing to do with her and he repeatedly told her to go home. As far as I’m concerned, she asked for it and I can’t blame the cop. He was surrounded by animals. With that said, apparently he’s been in trouble before. That shouldn’t have anything to do with this incident but it does give the chief some ammunition. The reason I say it shouldn’t have anything to do with this particular incident is if he was that bad of a cop he should have been fired long ago.
The land near my area has already been purchased by the feds for use as section 8 apartment buildings. It’s a ways from my house but they’re getting closer.
We no doubt watched different videos. Or perhaps our preconceptions and prejudices affected — to a significant degree — our ability to view the video objectively. Or perhaps there is yet another reason we disagree entirely.
I can’t imagine what you are seeing as you watch that cop’s freak out on that video, but he resigned almost instantly because of what was revealed about him and his hysteria.
He not only saw what I saw, but so did his boss.
I’m just curious to know if this is why he was with the Highway Patrol for such a short time.
“As the video shows, he was out of control during the incident,” Conley said, “I had 12 officers on the scene and 11 of them performed according to their training.”
Here is Mark Furhman’s analysis.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_DSU8ZP_bA
It also makes his life easier, and I'll wager that within a year he's quietly rehired at some other PD.
I don't see that happening at all. What sort of PD is going to be willing to take the risk? The man has already had one very public spectacle alleging he was out of control.
I can't conceive of him ever working on a Police Department again. The man's career is ruined.
As for the police chief, he should be ashamed to call himself a cop. In an attempt to assuage the professional racists that arrived soon after the incident, the chief demonstrated to a national audience that he is not only afraid to do his job to "serve and protect" the law-abiding citizens of his community, but that he also -- as well he should -- lost the respect of the police force that he leads. The chief -- not the officer -- should resign as a result of his lack of professionalism ... from my perspective, the chief has irreparably disgraced himself.
You are living inside of your own imagination, this isn’t theory and speculation, we saw what we saw, and the nut case instantly resigned, he and his union didn’t fight what was revealed as he freaked out and went hysterical, and totally lost control.
Mark Furhman thinks that it is a good thing that those kids ran from him, or they might be dead, as this cop kept spinning out of control.
You are ignoring reality, unlike everyone else involved, including the union guy who instantly resigned. The same guy with the very short Highway Patrol career.
I agree with you 100%, that was the way I saw it as well. But there are people who see what they want to see, and will never change their opinion no matter what.
You almost always see the same people all the time playing the same roles, too. On television, radio, Internet forums, and conversation. It is predictable.
Usually, but not always, we call them “liberals”.
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.