Posted on 08/25/2002 7:21:18 AM PDT by Dog Gone
Edited on 08/25/2002 7:46:31 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
A contingent of op-ed and letter writers to the Chronicle has taken the position that arresting 278 young people during a raid on a shopping center and restaurant parking lot last weekend was entirely justified because of the annoying late-night loitering and drag racing that had become typical at that spot. But the problem with the raid is not that police officers tried to arrest lawbreakers in and around the 24- hour Kmart Super Center parking in the 8400 block of Westheimer. It is with the contemptuous attitude police showed toward the citizenry by not bothering to sort out the good from the bad.
The people who so enthusiastically applaud law enforcement for shoddy police work more than likely would be singing a different tune if they or one of their children had been unjustly swept up in the botched raid and they found themselves spending all of a weekend day working through the city's criminal justice bureaucracy and coughing up large sums to retrieve their car from the pound.
More nettlesome than the irritation of being arrested for no cause, possible long-term consequences of a needlessly acquired criminal record and the potential for significant lawsuits that will have to be defended and settled with public funds, is the fact that the officer who led the Kmart debacle, Houston police Capt. Mark Aguirre, apparently has operated unchecked for years in this free-style arrest mode.
Police Chief C.O. Bradford says he has ordered an inquiry into the parking lot arrests. And Mayor Lee Brown has referred the matter to his Office of Inspector General. But Brown otherwise has been strangely quiet for a mayor who so heavily touted his extensive law enforcement experience during his three election campaigns.
The Chronicle does not condone behavior that is unlawful, or even just annoying, including drag racing, underage drinking, drug use, disturbingly loud music playing or anything else a bunch of kids hanging out late at night in a parking lot might be up to. But neither does the paper support police- state tactics that show an alarming disregard for the right of law-abiding citizens to to go about free from fear of sudden arrest.
Obviously all you got is smirking while spraying high speed projectile bullsh**.
Already did it, long before you entered the conversation: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/738956/posts?page=84#84
2) Confess the cases of Rodney King, Amadou Diallo and Randall Webster, et al, do not represent the respective police departments involved, or the law enforcement profession, as a whole
You forgot Pedro Oregon (shot nine times in the back by Houston PD in 1998. All six officers were fired). While they are not representative, it's irrelevant to this discussion.
3) Endorse the idea that police officers should be treated with the utmost respect
As long as police officers do the same for the citizens they serve, absolutely. Personally, I've only experienced one instance where an officer did not do so, and when I talked to his commanding officer, he agreed.
4) Agree they are being ridiculously low sums of money for literally placing their lives on the line for the safety of the public on a daily basis
I don't know what police officers are paid, but it's a job like anything else. If they don't think they are fairly compensated for the risks, then they should find another job. Sorry, but you are changing the subject again.
5) Recognize police shootings and deaths that occur during high-speed chases as a whole are not the fault of the police
What's the relevance of this? Why are you seeking absolution for things that have nothing to do with this incident? Is it because you realize that you have nothing to back your position and are desparately trying to change the subject?
...then I will say you made some good points and agree to disagree, as Niki has with myself.
No, that's not good enough. Your agreement with Niki has nothing to do with me. My challenge remains the same. If internal affairs and the courts decide that the police did nothing wrong, then I withdraw my objections and admit I was mistaken.
But if that doesn't occur, you have to do the same. Not "agree to disagree". A public admission of error. Are you "going to be a man" about this, or not? So far, it appears that you aren't.
The stakes are getting higher: the Houston PD has now suspended a total of 13 officers. Aguirre "was suspended because of allegations that he tried to influence other officers' statements to investigators about the incident." That's a serious accusation: criminal, not administrative. Do you really think he is going to get out of this without serious damage to his career, if he keeps his job at all?
Oh, I just realized: you know that Aguirre is in deep trouble. That's why you are trying so hard to change the subject. Others have accused you of being Stone Deaf. Clearly, the Artful Dodger is a better description.
I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of cutting and pasting it into an e-mail that I have shared with my friends. I thought it incredibly selfish to keep something so incredibly funny to myself.
And, please, don't cease or desist. I can always use the laugh.
Nope. Not at all. I was trying to gauge your feelings for police officers. Every single point I made are 100% valid, yet you refused to agree with all but one.
And why would I do this? Because your attitude towards the police reflects how you feel about this matter. The facts do not jibe with your assertion these 278 people were all completely innocent; their only crime being in the K-Mart parking lot. (By the way, since you seem to be a stickler for updates, here is the latest, in case you have not read it already.)
No, that's not good enough. Your agreement with Niki has nothing to do with me. My challenge remains the same. If internal affairs and the courts decide that the police did nothing wrong, then I withdraw my objections and admit I was mistaken.
But if that doesn't occur, you have to do the same. Not "agree to disagree". A public admission of error. Are you "going to be a man" about this, or not? So far, it appears that you aren't.
The only problem with this is, I have to agree to it. And I don't. Why? Because I do not have to.
And if "being a man" means agreeing with you, well, I have lived this long without caring about your definition of a man, why should I start caring now?
Oh, I just realized: you know that Aguirre is in deep trouble. That's why you are trying so hard to change the subject.
Wrong again. The only thing I realize is what is going to happen as a direct result of this: These groups who choose to hang out on private property and engage in criminal behavior will only get worse, because the little punks and completely irresponsible morons whom said groups are comprised of know from this point on, nothing will happen to them.
Others have accused you of being Stone Deaf. Clearly, the Artful Dodger is a better description.
And, it should be also clear I just don't care what they, you, or anyone else thinks of me. You want to flame me because neither I, nor the facts, agree with you? Get over it! I have.
Two, actually. I didn't agree or disagree with the rest of them, because they didn't have anything to do with the issue. I recognized that you were only trying to change the subject because you know you can't squirm away from my challenge any other way.
And why would I do this? Because your attitude towards the police reflects how you feel about this matter.
My attitude toward the police doesn't change whether they violated state law or knowingly arrested innocent people. But, read my postings to this thread starting here if you want to really know my attitude. I'm concerned that some number of rookie police officers are going to end up being victims of this fiasco, as well.
The facts do not jibe with your assertion these 278 people were all completely innocent; their only crime being in the K-Mart parking lot.
Produce one posting where I said that all 278 people are completely innocent. What I have asked repeatedly is how all 278 people can been guilty of criminal trespass or any other crime under these circumstances, as you have asserted here:
Me: But, the tactics of the Houston police committed several violations of Texas law.
You: The only people who did that were those arrested.
As you can see, you have claimed that every person arrested is guilty. I challenged you to admit you were wrong, if that turns out to be untrue. But, I never claimed that every person arrested was innocent and have actually posted several comments saying exactly the opposite. Again, you are either mapping your opinions onto me or are confusing me with someone else.
(By the way, since you seem to be a stickler for updates, here is the latest, in case you have not read it already.)
Already posted here. There's quite a bit of follow-up discussion, including the potential consequences of the allegations that some officers used unnecessary threats of deadly force during the raid. If it's true, things could get really ugly.
The only problem with this is, I have to agree to it. And I don't. Why? Because I do not have to.
No, you don't, if your credibility isn't of any value to you. But, I made this challenge when you wrote:
Look, I know you have no respect for law enforcement, and nothing would make you happier than to see another police department's hands further tied through the actions of wide-eyed, paranoid cop haters. But you are gonna have to be a man about this, accept the fact the facts are not in your favor, never have been and never will be, and build a bridge and get over it.
If you can't take more of the same dished back in your face, then you shouldn't be making allegations and personal attacks that you can't substantiate.
And if "being a man" means agreeing with you, well, I have lived this long without caring about your definition of a man, why should I start caring now?
As you can see in the parts of your posting I highlighted above, it was your criteria that I have to be a man about this, accept the fact the facts are not in your favor. I'm simply holding you to your own standard. If that makes you uncomfortable, then you should be looking in the mirror.
But to do so, you don't have to agree with me. All you have to do promise you will admit that you were wrong in claiming that the Houston Police did not commit any violations of policy or violations of law, and that every person arrested in that raid was guilty of some crime -- but only if the internal affairs, the criminal courts and civil courts do not agree with you. Those were my conditions and the challenge still stands.
Wrong again. The only thing I realize is what is going to happen as a direct result of this: These groups who choose to hang out on private property and engage in criminal behavior will only get worse, because the little punks and completely irresponsible morons whom said groups are comprised of know from this point on, nothing will happen to them.
I don't suppose that it occurred to you that the Houston police could go back to the same community policing methods that have been used for decades: dispersing the crowds, arresting those observed to commit crimes, handing out tickets for loitering to those that are encountered a second time, and arresting those that already have a ticket for loitering.
And the Houston police won't attempt illegal mass arrests again. They'll secure explicit complaints from business owners, and the owners won't agree to anything that gives the police a pretext to arrest all of their customers.
And, it should be also clear I just don't care what they, you, or anyone else thinks of me. You want to flame me because neither I, nor the facts, agree with you? Get over it! I have.
What I think of you, or whether you agree with me is of no concern to me. I'm challenging you because I believe the facts (and the law) don't agree with you, just as you made the challenge to me.
I've asked you to back up that challenge with a promise that you would admit your mistake if your allegations turned out to be wrong, and in exchange I've promised to do the same. But, so far all you have done is dodge my challenge, which is a sure sign that you really don't believe your claim that the Houston police did nothing wrong and that all the people arrested were guilty -- but are unwilling to admit it.
Given how things are unraveling more every day, I can understand why you don't believe it any longer, if you ever did. What I don't understand is why a person that is so hung up on law-and-order is not honest enough to admit they might have made a mistake.
That's a really lame non-response. If you really don't have anything else to say, why didn't you just slink away and hope that everyone forgets your embarrassing behavior? By posting again, all you did was bump the thread to the top so that everyone could see it again. And now, I'm doing the same.
Apparently, you aren't willing to live up to your own standards of accountability. I wasn't even asking you to do so now -- only that you pledge to admit your error in claiming that all HPD officers acted properly and all those arrested committed a crime -- and only if and when it becomes clear that the Houston PD violated policy and/or law, according to their own internal affairs and the Harris County courts. Conversely, I would have done the same if no fault was found and all of those arrested were convicted.
When I made my challenge, I thought you would gladly accept an opportunity for the Houston PD and the courts to settle the question. But, you won't even do that. Is it because you don't trust HPD and the courts to render a fair decision, or is it because you already realize that the outcome won't be in your favor?
I am tired of you practically twisting my arm in an attempt to get me to admit to something that I know to be untrue.
You have deliberately chosen not to look at the whole picture (hell, you did not even acknowledge the latter part of post #224) just so you can condemn and crucify the Houston Police Department for doing their g*ddamn job.
Now, if you actually believe I am ever going to lie to others and myself about what happened on September 18, and why, you can rest assured: Hell will freeze over first.
No, you still don't get it. I'm only asking you to pledge to admit your mistake if "what you know to be untrue" actually turns out to be true. If you are so sure that you are right, then why is that an unreasonable request? You risk nothing.
You have deliberately chosen not to look at the whole picture (hell, you did not even acknowledge the latter part of post #224) just so you can condemn and crucify the Houston Police Department for doing their g*ddamn job.
I responded to every part of your post #224. If you don't believe that, then you must be reading a version that I can't see. If you'll point out what part you believe I missed, I'll repost my response to it.
But, arresting people who have not committed any crime is not "doing their g*ddamn job". Had the HPD arrested only people that actually committed crimes, I would be in vehement agreement with you. But, I don't believe that to be true. I know that you don't, but I'm willing to accept the judgment of the Harris County courts. Are you?
Now, if you actually believe I am ever going to lie to others and myself about what happened on September 18, and why, you can rest assured: Hell will freeze over first.
I presume that you mean August 18. But, what are you going to do if the HPD administration fires and/or reprimands any officers involved in the raid, or if the Harris County courts dismisses the charges or acquits any of those arrested for criminal trespass? Will you still be claiming that the HPD did nothing wrong? If so, who will you be lying to, then?
Again, the only 'source' you could site was the opinion of a woman who wasn't there. I can site over 10 that were, including police officers and owners of the businesses involved. In otherwards, you've got very cute and creative word arrangements, kind of like the Al Gore 'say anything' tactic.
This is a bit like saying, "Hey! The sun revolves around the earth. I know you believe otherwise, but if what I think happens to be true, why don't you just admit I was right and you were wrong?" Why don't you roll marbles down a freeway instead?
In an earlier post, you claimed you never said all the people arrested were innocent. And yet, in this post, you say: But, arresting people who have not committed any crime is not "doing their g*ddamn job".
Do you enjoy talking out of both sides of your mouth?
I presume that you mean August 18.
I told you I was tired.
But, what are you going to do if the HPD administration fires and/or reprimands any officers involved in the raid, or if the Harris County courts dismisses the charges or acquits any of those arrested for criminal trespass?
For the first part of your question, with the exception of Aguirre, who has already been selected as a fall guy, that is not likely to happen. As for the second, so what? Criminals are allowed to walk all the time. What, did you think OJ Simpson and Alejandro Avila were mere flukes? And none of the thugs and fools that were arrested that night are going to be rearrested for doing the same thing, for a reason I have already pointed out.
No, I asked you to pledge that you would admit you were wrong, but only if the HPD administration or the courts contradict your assertions. I'm not asking you to admit anything now -- only that you acknowledge that you will publicly accept the judgement of the people already tasked to investigate this incident.
In an earlier post, you claimed you never said all the people arrested were innocent. And yet, in this post, you say: But, arresting people who have not committed any crime is not "doing their g*ddamn job". Do you enjoy talking out of both sides of your mouth?
If the police arrested anyone who was not committing a crime, the weren't doing their job. It doesn't matter if "one", "a few", "some", or even "most" of those arrested had actually committed a crime: the police are required to arrest only those that committed a crime.
And that's what I question: if every person arrested committed a crime. You claim they did. I don't believe that is the case, and it's the crux of my challenge. Why is it so hard for you to understand that doesn't mean that I believe no person committed a crime? We both know that 42 people were arrested for curfew violations, so that's a known fact.
But what about the other 236 people? Was every one of them committing a crime? According to news reports, they were arrested for criminal trespass. Was every one of them trespassing, including the people eating dinner at the Sonic, or literally waiting at the traffic light to leave?
For the first part of your question, with the exception of Aguirre, who has already been selected as a fall guy, that is not likely to happen.
OK, so you are already backpedaling. Aguirre is going to be the "fall guy". "Fall guy" for what? If HPD didn't do anything wrong, what is he going to take the fall for?
And what about the rest of the officers? The district attorney's office has publicly stated that he will prosecute any officer that arrested anyone who hadn't committed a crime, regardless of whether the officer might have been ordered to do so. My challenge remains: are you willing to admit that you were wrong if any officer is reprimanded or fired for this? You claim that "it's not likely to happen", so it's little or no risk to you. So, why do you keep refusing my challenge?
As for the second, so what? Criminals are allowed to walk all the time. What, did you think OJ Simpson and Alejandro Avila were mere flukes? And none of the thugs and fools that were arrested that night are going to be rearrested for doing the same thing, for a reason I have already pointed out.
You are trying to change the subject again. This is about the people that were arrested for criminal trespass at the K-mart and Sonic on Westheimer on 8/18. No one else. Either they are all guilty (as you claim), or at least some of them aren't.
How many charges have to be dismissed, or how many people have to be acquitted before you will admit that mistakes were made by the HPD? How many judgements for false arrest have to be awarded before you admit that some of the people were guilty of no crime?
This is a bit like saying, "Hey! The sun revolves around the earth. I know you believe otherwise, but if what I think happens to be true, why don't you just admit I was right and you were wrong?" Why don't you roll marbles down a freeway instead?
If you are going to make the same argument over and over, be prepared to get the same response likewise.
And that's what I question: if every person arrested committed a crime. You claim they did. I don't believe that is the case, and it's the crux of my challenge.
As I have said before, before the raid had begun, undercover officers had handed out cards to people they had reason to believe were legitimate customers. All someone had to do was whip out this card, and they would not be arrested. Therefore, every single person arrested was because they had committed a crime. Next!
OK, so you are already backpedaling.
That sound you just heard was me falling out of my chair from laughing so hard.
Aguirre is going to be the "fall guy". "Fall guy" for what? If HPD didn't do anything wrong, what is he going to take the fall for?
Controversial arrests means bad PR. A lamb must therefore be sacrificed for the preservation of the image of the Houston Police Department.
My challenge remains: are you willing to admit that you were wrong if any officer is reprimanded or fired for this? You claim that "it's not likely to happen", so it's little or no risk to you. So, why do you keep refusing my challenge?
This is a bit like saying, "Hey! The sun revolves around the earth. I know you believe otherwise, but if what I think happens to be true, why don't you just admit I was right and you were wrong?" Why don't you roll marbles down a freeway instead?
You are trying to change the subject again.
I think a refresher course in reading comprehension and perhaps a honing up on your debating skills would be in order. This is made obvious by your assertion that the mere mention of two people by name, placed within a very relevant context is trying to change the subject, as well as the "challenge" which is referred to in the frequency of every other paragraph.
I am now more than tired. I am bored. I respectfully request here, in a public forum, you address no more correspondence to me.
Every time I asked you to simply pledge that you admit you wrong -- but only if it turned out to be true, you changed it into that I was trying to get you to admit it now. That's not the same thing. Correcting you is not repetition.
As I have said before, before the raid had begun, undercover officers had handed out cards to people they had reason to believe were legitimate customers. All someone had to do was whip out this card, and they would not be arrested. Therefore, every single person arrested was because they had committed a crime. Next!
So, you are asserting that every person that was supposed to get a card received one. Yet, there are people that were arrested even though they were waiting to depart the premises when the police arrived.
So, I believe innocent people were arrested. I doubt all of them were completely innocent, but recent information (that K-Mart never signed a complaint) indicates no one was committing the crime for which they were actually arrested. And, I believe that the courts will confirm that. Even now, the district attorney is saying that he will dismiss all of the charges if it turns out that anyone was improperly arrested.
As a result, those people that had been committing some crime will have their arrest dismissed. You have expressed concerned that the truly guilty will get away with this, and it's a valid concern. But, that's the HPD's fault: if they had only arrested people that had committed a crime, there would be no controversy.
That sound you just heard was me falling out of my chair from laughing so hard.
Why? You insisted that no one in the HPD did anything wrong. Now, you admit that Aquirre might not get away unscathed. If it quacks like a duck, it's usually a duck.
Controversial arrests means bad PR. A lamb must therefore be sacrificed for the preservation of the image of the Houston Police Department.
Controversial arrests are indeed bad PR. Illegal arrests are even worse. So, what will you do if more officers are reprimanded, fired, or prosecuted for illegal arrests? Will they be "sacrificial lambs" as well? How many have to be "sacrificed" before you admit that the HPD did indeed act improperly?
[pointless repetition edited]
I think a refresher course in reading comprehension and perhaps a honing up on your debating skills would be in order. This is made obvious by your assertion that the mere mention of two people by name, placed within a very relevant context is trying to change the subject, as well as the "challenge" which is referred to in the frequency of every other paragraph.
Those two other people are in distant jurisdictions and prosecuted for entirely different crimes. How are they relevant to this incident?
I am now more than tired. I am bored. I respectfully request here, in a public forum, you address no more correspondence to me.
If you want to run away, be on your way. Per your wish, I won't address this to you. Instead, I'll address it to everyone else that has been following this thread, and let them decide which one of us is discussing this issue honestly.
Have a nice day.
Only 42 were kids, the rest were adults, many simply shopping at K-mart or eating at Sonic. If the police had arrested only law breakers this would not be an issue.
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.