Texas Police Officer Pulls Gun On Teens

Arsemageddon

Foxtrol wrote: »

In most parts of the States Police wouldn't even need a fight to disperse a group, it's just an example of one of the ways the cops had a right to do what they did.

Not so.

The first amendment guarantees the right to free assembly.

The constitution trumps all other laws.

darkpagandeath

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Not so.

The first amendment guarantees the right to free assembly.

The constitution trumps all other laws.

:pac: Gl with that one. Where does it say you can disturb the peace and fight ?

Arsemageddon

darkpagandeath wrote: »

:pac: Gl with that one. Where does it say you can disturb the peace and fight ?

Other poster said cops in the US have the right to disperse groups of people if they feel like it.

Other poster is utterly incorrect on this specific point.

darkpagandeath

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Other poster said cops in the US have the right to disperse groups of people if they feel like it.

Other poster is utterly incorrect on this specific point.

I did not see that implication could be in relation to other public order laws.

hatrickpatrick

Foxtrol wrote: »

Ok, so you're posting in this thread based on hatrickpatrick laws.

I'm posting in a thread about an incident, giving my opinion on how it could have been better handled. That covers not only the cops but also the laws governing their behaviour, surely?

In the same vein of logic, under Foxtrol laws not doing what a police officer says is instant beheading. This girl got off lightly and she should be thanking the police officer. :rolleyes:

Pretty much, yeah. That's what debates are about. People having different opinions and discussing them. :pac:

Arsemageddon

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I did not see that implication could be in relation to other public order laws.

What?

hatrickpatrick

darkpagandeath wrote: »

:pac: Gl with that one. Where does it say you can disturb the peace and fight ?

The fight did not involve everyone present. I'd have absolutely no problem with the cops ordering those fighting to leave (although I'd still argue that the instigator should always be treated more harshly than others in cases of fights), it's asking the entire party to break up because of the actions of the few which I take issue with.

hatrickpatrick

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I did not see that implication could be in relation to other public order laws.

Public order laws in Ireland are too vague and always have been. Not sure about the US.

darkpagandeath

Arsemageddon wrote: »

What?

There was no "If they feel like it" mentioned.

darkpagandeath

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The fight did not involve everyone present. I'd have absolutely no problem with the cops ordering those fighting to leave (although I'd still argue that the instigator should always be treated more harshly than others in cases of fights), it's asking the entire party to break up because of the actions of the few which I take issue with.

I'm guessing they found out a pay for event was being held on community /public property without permits and insurance and all that.

Arsemageddon

darkpagandeath wrote: »

There was no "If they feel like it" mentioned.

Yea, I know that - I was paraphrasing.

Have you actually got a point to make or do you just like posting inane, pedantic nonsense?

hatrickpatrick

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I'm guessing they found out a pay for event was being held on community /public property without permits and insurance and all that.

The event was free entry, as evidenced by the actual posters advertising it.

darkpagandeath

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Public order laws in Ireland are too vague and always have been. Not sure about the US.

In the Texas laws dealing with public orderr.

(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;

Gatling

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The event was free entry, as evidenced by the actual posters advertising it.

Actually a dj was charging $15 entry

darkpagandeath

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The event was free entry, as evidenced by the actual posters advertising it.

Ok stand corrected, Did they have a permit or insurance ?

You have to contact Mayor's Office of Special Events

Warper

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What's a 'community pool' and why don't we have them?

Have you looked outside the window recently?

darkpagandeath

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Yea, I know that - I was paraphrasing.

Have you actually got a point to make or do you just like posting inane, pedantic nonsense?

Something that was not mentioned or even implied.

Overheal

Foxtrol wrote: »

This is getting silly now. Lets look at the actual facts. We can ignore potential drinking/drugs/noise as we cannot confirm that, however likely.

This party either occurred in a) a private community pool or b) a public area.

a) the police would have had the right to disperse as there is no way a private community pool would allow 70 teenagers pay money towards an event on their premises and there is no way anyone has guest passes for 70 people.

b) we have a group of 70 teenagers in a public area with members of the group fighting with residents (doesn't matter who started it). We also have people taking money for people to attend this public area where they have not gotten prior approval to use (you have to get approval to have any gathering with the local parks and rec) and from the organisers mention of just inviting people she surely did not get insurance/security etc for it. These individually or collectively would give the right for the police to clear the area.


Will people stop treating this like 10 kids at a house party.

I've already told you there is no basis to assume alcohol was involved. These were all or mostly underage people. Find a source corroborating that there was drugs or alcohol involved before you keep spreading misinformation. "Take a look at the actual facts" :rolleyes: You want to believe they were a bunch of hopped up misfits - great: find a source.

The right of place is irrelevant: in either case the cops weren't there to debate the finer points of the community pool's rules or the HOA's rules or the terms of anyone's lease. They were there responding to noise complaints, violence, racial tensions, and people climbing over fences etc.

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Not so.

The first amendment guarantees the right to free assembly.

The constitution trumps all other laws.

The constitution has exceptions. For instance, your first amendment right as a US citizen doesn't give you the permission to shout fire in a movie theater, or incite hate crimes; the right to bear arms is not extended to convicted felons; etc.

Unless you know of a Supreme Court decision that says you can freely assemble wherever you want without exception, I look forward to my neighbors not throwing a rager in my living room.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The event was free entry, as evidenced by the actual posters advertising it.

There are conflicting sources saying a DJ at the pool was charging $15 for entry.

Arsemageddon

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Something that was not mentioned or even implied.

The specific part of the post I was responding to was utterly incorrect.

It stated that cops in the US have the power to break up peaceful assemblies. They absolutely do not. That's why crazies like the Westboro Baptist church can protest/troll at funerals the way they do.

Any chance you could point out specifically why what I posted that is incorrect, some links would be nice

Overheal

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The specific part of the post I was responding to was utterly incorrect.

It stated that cops in the US have the power to break up peaceful assemblies. They absolutely do not. That's why crazies like the Westboro Baptist church can protest/troll at funerals the way they do.

Any chance you could point out specifically why what I posted that is incorrect, some links would be nice

You mean someone misspoke on the internet???? :eek::eek::eek::eek:

jackofalltrades

It's definitely not a public pool.

From the Craig Ranch North Amenity Rental.

If you wish to have a POOL PARTY, it must be limited to 20 people.
The fees will be the $175.00 refundable Security Damage Deposit and $50.00 Rental Use Fee

So I think it's safe to say that they didn't have permission to use the pool.
It looks like they advertised it on social media and loads of people turned up.
Loads more info here. Some of it verifiable, some not.

The whole idea that this was an innocent pool party is total BS.

darkpagandeath

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The specific part of the post I was responding to was utterly incorrect.

It stated that cops in the US have the power to break up peaceful assemblies. They absolutely do not. That's why crazies like the Westboro Baptist church can protest/troll at funerals the way they do.

Any chance you could point out specifically why what I posted that is incorrect, some links would be nice

No permit for an event on public/community land I would guess, it was an event not a peaceful assembly. It was in relation to the party not just a few people in a pool.

darkpagandeath

jackofalltrades wrote: »

It's definitely not a public pool.

From the Craig Ranch North Amenity Rental.



So I think it's safe to say that they didn't have permission to use the pool.
It looks like they advertised it on social media and loads of people turned up.
Loads more info here. Some of it verifiable, some not.

The whole idea that this was an innocent pool party is total BS.

Case closed then on the reason for ending the party.

Gringo180

"The land of the free" :pac:

Everything about American society disgusts me.

Overheal

jackofalltrades wrote: »

It's definitely not a public pool.

From the Craig Ranch North Amenity Rental.



So I think it's safe to say that they didn't have permission to use the pool.
It looks like they advertised it on social media and loads of people turned up.
Loads more info here. Some of it verifiable, some not.

The whole idea that this was an innocent pool party is total BS.

ah, not total BS, if they didn't expect such a large crowd. the other possibility being that if you charge 70 people $15, that fee becomes irrelevant quick

darkpagandeath

Overheal wrote: »

ah, not total BS, if they didn't expect such a large crowd. the other possibility being that if you charge 70 people $15, that fee becomes irrelevant quick

Does it matter the rules state 20 max, Landlord or whatever would be well within the rights to ask the police to disperse the crowd.

Overheal

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Does it matter the rules state 20 max, Landlord or whatever would be well within the rights to ask the police to disperse the crowd.

Absolutely. I'm not even on board with any argument the cops shouldn't have been there (that's a bit silly). But clearly one of the officers that arrived on scene was fresh off his dog the bounty hunter marathon or something.

jackofalltrades

Overheal wrote: »

ah, not total BS, if they didn't expect such a large crowd. the other possibility being that if you charge 70 people $15, that fee becomes irrelevant quick

If you can only invite 18 other people, then you can't advertise it on social media to the whole world.
It looks like the promoters in question just wanted a free venue.
That and on the website I linked to it claims that they didn't have permission to use the land or the swimming pool.
Even though this claim is unsubstatited, it makes sense in light of the Police Department saying that they didn't have permission to be there.

Overheal

That's assuming everyone involved was a "social media expert" but even then, the flyer/image could have always been re-shared/re-posted among friends. Either way I'll just assume for granted that they ****ed up in having the party in the first place, but that's not really the issue here as much as it is Barrel-rolls McSwinney

foggy_lad

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If you can only invite 18 other people, then you can't advertise it on social media to the whole world.
It looks like the promoters in question just wanted a free venue.
That and on the website I linked to it claims that they didn't have permission to use the land or the swimming pool.
Even though this claim is unsubstatited, it makes sense in light of the Police Department saying that they didn't have permission to be there.

From what i have seen the DJ arrived and set up beside the pool area and someone connected to the DJ was collecting a fee from people who arrived, residents say they had no right to be there at all. Sounds like a couple of chancers trying to make money from an illegal event.

darkpagandeath

foggy_lad wrote: »

From what i have seen the DJ arrived and set up beside the pool area and someone connected to the DJ was collecting a fee from people who arrived, residents say they had no right to be there at all. Sounds like a couple of chancers trying to make money from an illegal event.

I'm guessing it stared out with the resident's telling them the rules about 20 people being allowed to attend an event. Most people have a fair idea what the landlord rules are and then escalated after that. Then the cops were called we know for the fight but other resident's could have called the landlord for example on an illegal party and they then also called the police.

Arsemageddon

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No permit for an event on public/community land I would guess, it was an event not a peaceful assembly. It was in relation to the party not just a few people in a pool.

FFS

I have already stated that I was not talking about this case. I was making a general point about the constitutional right to freedom of assembly.

Is that really so hard to get your head around?

darkpagandeath

Arsemageddon wrote: »

FFS

I have already stated that I was not talking about this case. I was making a general point about the constitutional right to freedom of assembly.

Is that really so hard to get your head around?

And that's related to this case how ? All legal items brought up are in relation to the "Party".

Iwasfrozen

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The event was free entry, as evidenced by the actual posters advertising it.

There were children jumping the fence, children who were clearly denied access.

Arsemageddon

darkpagandeath wrote: »

And that's related to this case how ? All legal items brought up are in relation to the "Party".

I was pointing out that another poster was wrong and you then joined in by quoting me and posting a load of irrelevant waffle.

Not really my problem that you can't read a short and simple post properly.

darkpagandeath

Arsemageddon wrote: »

I was pointing out that another poster was wrong and you then joined in by quoting me and posting a load of irrelevant waffle.

Not really my problem that you can't read a short and simple post properly.

What's quoting the constitution in relation to peaceful assembly got to do with cops being able to move you on for various reasons legally. There is only one person sorry post that who brought up the cops being able to just order at will.

Arsemageddon

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What's quoting the constitution in relation to peaceful assembly got to do with cops being able to move you on for various reasons legally. There is only one person who brought up the cops being able to just order at will.

........and it wasn't you and it wasn't me it was another poster.

This getting very boring now so I!m off now. If your still confused then maybe you should try reading back over the thread.

Bye bye

Gatling

So an illegal party in a Gated community highly likely drugs and alcohol involved despite what some believe American teens been all pure and innocent.
Fact is like most teens most any where in the world, mob mentality rules in these situations and the sweet and innocent become feral animals .

To much Christian TV been watched i think

Little CuChulainn

El Weirdo wrote: »

The Gardaí can do sweet fuck all about noise as it's a civil matter. They can ask you to turn the music down, but that's about it. You'd be well within your rights to turn them away.

I have been at house parties with close to that many attending.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And if the Gardaí explain that, then great. But I fail to see why anyone should have to do anything or entertain anything from them unless they can cite what legislation the homeowner is in violation of. Especially if it's a "don't like the look of them" scenario.

Sure. Why not? Myself and my family done so many times and have never had a problem. Neighbours have been invited to a lot of them. Never had the Gardai called mainly because my neighbours aren't assholes.

If it's just noise there won't be an issue but if your party is getting out of hand (i.e. fighting) to the point that neighbours are complaining and you tell the Gardaí to piss off then you can be pretty sure they will enter under the common law power of breach of the peace to shut down the party and arrest the people causing the problem. You can also be fairly certain you will be served with an asbo shortly after.

Junkyard Tom

Warper wrote: »

Have you looked outside the window recently?

Yes, why?

jackofalltrades

foggy_lad wrote: »

From what i have seen the DJ arrived and set up beside the pool area and someone connected to the DJ was collecting a fee from people who arrived, residents say they had no right to be there at all. Sounds like a couple of chancers trying to make money from an illegal event.

Yeah I think he said he was selling tickets for another event.
There a lot of speculation that this was a free event to promote other events.

BlaasForRafa

foggy_lad wrote: »

From what i have seen the DJ arrived and set up beside the pool area and someone connected to the DJ was collecting a fee from people who arrived, residents say they had no right to be there at all. Sounds like a couple of chancers trying to make money from an illegal event.

Sounds like a bunch of white people saw some black people in their neighborhood and decided to call the cops to get rid of them. Texas is a pretty racist state.

Then there's the over-reaction of TJ Hooker in the video, manhandling a bikini-clad teenager and then brandishing his weapon for no reason, you can see the other cops rush over to defuse him before he does something (more) stupid.

Iwasfrozen

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Sounds like a bunch of white people saw some black people in their neighborhood and decided to call the cops to get rid of them. Texas is a pretty racist state.

Then there's the over-reaction of TJ Hooker in the video, manhandling a bikini-clad teenager and then brandishing his weapon for no reason, you can see the other cops rush over to defuse him before he does something (more) stupid.

Or we could not assume the residents are racist and conclude the cops were called because there were kids getting rowdy in a private estate.

Overheal

Gatling wrote: »

So an illegal party in a Gated community highly likely drugs and alcohol involved despite what some believe American teens been all pure and innocent.
Fact is like most teens most any where in the world, mob mentality rules in these situations and the sweet and innocent become feral animals .

To much Christian TV been watched i think

You're making a lot of generalizations there.

The only reference to alcohol I can find is in one article concerning Bryan Gestner, apparently a resident, claims alcohol and weed were present; that teens returned the following day of the incident to kick in doors, steal a truck, and crash it around the neighborhood. However, I haven't seen any other articles corroborating that and the way Gestner words the claim, the actions of the following day of the incident were the reasons cops were so hostile the day before? Which sounds you know, like quantum entanglement at first glance. http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/06/video-analysis-mckinney-brawl-another-rush-to-misjudgment/ the article already presumes legal innocence on the part of the officer, which has not been established by the investigating body.

Some articles are out there digging for unnecessary dirt on Officer Casebolt: http://heavy.com/news/2015/06/eric-casebolt-mckinney-cop-officer-was-sued-for-racial-bias-sexual-assault-harassment-albert-brown-arrest-pull-pants-down-federal-documents-dismissed/ digging up legal documents of a lawsuit where the charges against him were dismissed, doesn't really have any relevance, but hey, thats whats happening.

Foxtrol

Overheal wrote: »

I've already told you there is no basis to assume alcohol was involved. These were all or mostly underage people. Find a source corroborating that there was drugs or alcohol involved before you keep spreading misinformation. "Take a look at the actual facts" :rolleyes: You want to believe they were a bunch of hopped up misfits - great: find a source.

Did you even read my post?? I specifically said to ignore alcohol and drugs. Here it is again if you in case you missed it before you got smart.

Foxtrol wrote: »

This is getting silly now. Lets look at the actual facts. We can ignore potential drinking/drugs/noise as we cannot confirm that, however likely.

Overheal

So why mention it at all? "We should totally ignore this [irrelevant factoid], even though it definitely probably happened."

In other news, a McKinney reserve officer has come out blasting Casebolt for his actions on the scene: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/06/08/3667044/longtime-mckinney-officer-blasts-police-conduct-pool-party-says-department-race-problem/

Foxtrol

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Sounds like a bunch of white people saw some black people in their neighborhood and decided to call the cops to get rid of them. Texas is a pretty racist state.

Here's a black radio host who lives in the community and was at the pool during the incident. Should put to bed any racial questions or claims that the kids had a right to bed there.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/06/08/black-radio-host-that-witnessed-mckinney-pool-incident-i-do-not-believe-that-this-was-about-race/

For his words he's now, along with other residents, received death threats. Lovely bunch you're supporting altogether!

The girl's cousin who was there has also said he doesn't believe race had anything to do with it.

Overheal

I don't think the cops were racially profiling. Undeniably though from reports a couple of the residents did help spark the situation with racial epithets.

There's a white bikini girl next to the takedown that does nothing but protest; one black male teen waves a towel at the cop, a white male teen takes off his hat and tries to use it to swat at the cop, both of which trigger the handgun response. 2 officers approach immediately, one of the officers grabs/restrains officer Casebolt on his left arm before he and the other officer pursue the 2 male teens. Then theres that older white overweight dude who his holding people back from the cop - not sure what he was all about.

Foxtrol

Overheal wrote: »

So why mention it at all? "We should totally ignore this [irrelevant factoid], even though it definitely probably happened."

I said lets ignore the things that we cannot confirm as reasons why the police could legally disperse the group, as other posters had mentioned noise, drink, and drugs before as legitimate causes.

If you want to say 130 teens were there at a party and it's not likely that any alcohol or drugs were being taken then that's up to you. I think that's pretty naive but I maybe more pessimistic/realistic about the youth of today.

If you had read my post the first time, rather than rushing to respond to what you hoped I'd written then we wouldn't be having this issue.

Overheal

Well now you're just putting words in my mouth. A lot of words in my mouth. Move along now.