Posted on 01/25/2003 8:07:03 AM PST by Houmatt
Two police officers involved in the Kmart raid in which nearly 300 people were arrested are likely to be fired Tuesday, their lawyer and a union representative say.
The lawyer for Capt. Mark A. Aguirre, who ordered the raid, and for Sgt. Ken Wenzel said the Houston Police Department should wait to decide whether to fire them until after the two go to trial this summer on charges of official oppression.
Instead both are scheduled for hearings, at which it will be determined whether they should be fired Tuesday.
"Most people who have loudermill hearings get fired," lawyer Terry W. Yates said.
"They should allow us to have our day in court," he said. "They're rushing to judgment."
HPD spokesman Robert Hurst said the department is following proper procedures.
"Mr. Yates is fully aware of what the Houston Police Department disciplinary process is," he said.
Aguirre and Wenzel were indicted last month on five counts each of official oppression for the Aug. 18 sweep of a Kmart parking lot. The raid was intended to crack down on drag racing, but when no one was found drag racing, officers arrested hundreds on charges of trespassing and curfew violations.
Thirteen police officers were suspended with pay and all the trespassing and curfew violations dropped. No charges were filed against the other 11 officers implicated in the incident.
More officers are scheduled for hearings, Hurst said, but he said he did not know how many, who or when the hearings would be held. Hurst declined to comment further because the issue is a disciplinary matter.
Hans Marticiuc, president of the Houston Police Officers Union, said he expects Aguirre and Wenzel and possibly two more officers to be fired.
Acting Police Chief Timothy Oettmeier will report to City Council on Wednesday the results of an internal investigation of the Kmart incident.
That's because it was part of a radio interview that was never transcribed for FR. But it was on KTRH. Why don't you ask them?
But if you're suggesting that the officers quoted in the Chronicle story were not even there, you have totally lost it.
And you are just accepting it without question.
Do you remember James Hatfield's bio of George W. Bush, "Fortunate Son", where he quoted an "unnamed source" stating Bush had a cocaine habit? Remember how it turned out to be a big fat lie?
You see, this is why anonymous sources don't have credibility. As Ronald Reagan said, "Trust, but verify."
And before you say it, I will add even if the tow truck driver did not give his name, he was willing to speak on the radio, making it possible for those who heard his voice to identify him. All you have are anonymous supervisors who claimed to be there, and others who were just critical of Aguirre talking to a newspaper.
i'm just following your argument to it's conclusion. you state as fact, here, that residents had ongoing complaints about drunken behavior and vandalism.
you state here - Do you really expect any reasonable person to believe they (all 270 of them) suddenly chose one night to act civilized, and by coincidence that was the night of the raid?
so, this was a typical night. the police arrest everyone and find no evidence of the allegations of drunken behavior and vandalism. the conclusion that the complaints were false is inescapable from your premises.
Houmatt, a Grand Jury interviewed those supervisors and then issued multiple indictments.
I believe the Houston Chronicle knew who they were talking to. Why would these officers come out like this? Just to get your friend, Captain Aguirre? Did they also hide all the evidence of crimes being committed that night?
Is this your reality? The raid went well, all the right criminals were caught in the act, and then some junior officers decided to lie about what happened in order to get Aguirre in trouble? Is that what you would have us believe?
Did you know that the Houston City Council voted to spend your tax money to get the records of those arrested expunged? I guess they didn't hear your tow truck driver.
1) They issued indictments of official oppression against two people. I could hardly call that "multiple."
2) You are making it sound like the indictments came down solely because of interviews with supervisors, based on claims none of those arrested did anything wrong.
Trouble is, we cannot know that, unless either one of us were on that Grand Jury. Which is highly unlikely. So as far as why the indictments were handed down and exactly what was said, all you can do is speculate.
Did you know that the Houston City Council voted to spend your tax money to get the records of those arrested expunged?
Did you know I could give a flying fork because it is not even relevant to me, especially considering the fact the only reason why the charges were dropped in the first place is because the acting police chief requested it?
You just go on saying the people living in the complex are liars.
I am sure you also say the world is flat, the moon landing was faked, the Holocaust never happened, and you have genius level intelligence.
Riiiiiiiiiight.
i'm not saying it. your arguments are. it's not my fault your arguments are poor. you offered no explanation as to why those drunken vandals in the parking lot were not charged. your only response was sarcasm, a particularly ineffective technique when arguing with yourself.
you have stated multiple times that the crowd was guilty of criminal behavior, but there were no charges filed. you continue to support the raid, despite the plain fact that it was a huge screwup and will cost officers their jobs, and taxpayers millions. you can't even generate support for your position on free republic, which has about as friendly an leo crowd as can be found in the general public.
That was hardly the only reason. That was the formality that they went through to effectuate the process.
And the reason why I said "multiple" is because I believe each of these officers were indicted on five counts of official oppression. Ten indictments is definitely "multiple."
Uh-huh. Nice try. The only person suggesting it is YOU. And to say otherwise is an outright lie on your part.
you can't even generate support for your position on free republic, which has about as friendly an leo crowd as can be found in the general public.
Another lie.
Every single person who has the audacity to say 1) The police are 100% guilty, 2) The raid was not necessary or justified under any cirumstance, 3) Nobody in the KMart parking lot on Friday and Saturday nights has ever committed a crime there at any time and 4) The people living in the apartment complex surrounding the KMart are liars are nothing but unabashed, unmitigated cop haters who need to be taken to a high crime area (like Houston's Fifth Ward) and left to their own devices with nothing but the clothes on their back.
Maybe then they will have a newfound appreciation and respect for those who willingly and literally put their lives on the line just to keep those ingrates alive and safe.
two of the three items were supplied by you. i just added the actual, you know, result of the arrests. i'm still waiting for you to defend your premises. your argument is that (residents reported) the crowd was engaging in criminal behavior, and you argued this didn't stop just for the night in question. police found no evidence for your accusations. so are you now saying you believe the residents (premise #1) over the police? why do you hate the police so much?
Every single person who has the audacity to say 1) The police are 100% guilty, 2) The raid was not necessary or justified under any cirumstance, 3) Nobody in the KMart parking lot on Friday and Saturday nights has ever committed a crime there at any time and 4) The people living in the apartment complex surrounding the KMart are liars are nothing but unabashed, unmitigated cop haters who need to be taken to a high crime area (like Houston's Fifth Ward) and left to their own devices with nothing but the clothes on their back
keep digging. maybe you'll cover yourself up eventually. wouldn't it just be easier to admit you made a mistake with this line of argument? everyone here has acknowledged the crowd was a problem. but that didn't justify the police tactics. (and i know you didn't just seriously call free republic a hostile place for law enforcement)
I was about to post and explain to you just how outrageously mistaken you are in that claim, but I see that two other folks have beaten me to it and explained it even better than I could.
So instead I'll deal with this little gem of yours:
In light of this, you would be well advised to sit down and shut up.
You're really bucking for another suspension, aren't you?
Now you can add me to the list of folks you'd be advised to apologize to -- that is, if you have any honor at all, which so far I've seen no sign of.
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.