Unhinged cop goes after camera-wielding black men


SUJagFan said:
Okay.

Let me ask you a question. Let's say it's a lovely night in Texas and you visit the friendly Wal-Mart. The lightbulbs are out in many of the security lights in the parking lot. Let's just say something bad happens in the parking lot - an accident, an assault ... whatever. In Texas, who gets sued? Wal-Mart or the State/Municipality?
Click to expand...

Walmart, they are responsible for the up keep of that parking lot.
 



SUJagFan said:
Okay.

Let me ask you a question. Let's say it's a lovely night in Texas and you visit the friendly Wal-Mart. The lightbulbs are out in many of the security lights in the parking lot. Let's just say something bad happens in the parking lot - an accident, an assault ... whatever. In Texas, who gets sued? Wal-Mart or the State/Municipality?
Click to expand...

To be honest, I don't know how to answer that question. In the examples that you give (accident, assault), I can't see either being sued. But maybe I am just not completely comprehending what you are asking...The way I understand it, those type of instances are treated the same as if you were assaulted in the middle of the street in your neighborhood under the burnt out streetlight.
 
GSU4LIFE said:
Walmart, they are responsible for the up keep of that parking lot.
Click to expand...

SUJagFan said:
Noooooo!

Can't be. The parking lot is a public place. Right?
Click to expand...

I think I understand a bit better where you are going with this. Someone in the know can correct me if I may be wrong, but yeah Wal Mart is responsible for its upkeep, but the lot is still considered a public place....right?
 
s phi s said:
I think I understand a bit better where you are going with this. Someone in the know can correct me if I may be wrong, but yeah Wal Mart is responsible for its upkeep, but the lot is still considered a public place....right?
Click to expand...

Correct.
 
GSU4LIFE said:
What would be the charge? Trespassing?
Click to expand...

Yeah...

It's to my understanding that it isn't even necessary for private property to have "no tresspassing signs posted. Legal action could still be pursued if trespassers are caught.

However, I think it would be a very hypersensitive case.
 
Last edited:
s phi s said:
Not true. In Texas, a public place is one "...to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access." Typically, a Wal Mart parking lot will not have a controlled access gate or a parking attendant screening who is allowed onto the lot, and you don't need a parking pass, which makes this a public place, per the Texas definition. Heck, you can get a DWI charge for driving in that same parking lot.

Now, I am no expert, but I don't see a justification for the officer's actions, unless there was something that happened between the officer and the 2 young men prior to what we see in the video. Barring that, if there are no signs that prohibit video-taping, then there is no expectation of privacy for the store itself. The OFFICER can request that he not be video-taped, as can any person. But in and of itself, this is not a criminal act (to my knowledge) and the only remedy I know of for filming someone without their consent is in civil court, and they likely wouldn't award any damages if the person who shot the video isn't making money off of it.

Absent of probable cause, I don't think the officer is justified in asking for an identification, as there was no criminal offense.
Click to expand...

To amend this comment, and going solely off what was presented in the video, the officer can indeed justify asking for identification. The young men can also justify refusing, since they were not under arrest. The young men were detained and ultimately released, probably because the D.A. would not accept charges, which means whatever he tried to arrest them for was probably pretty weak. Again, I do not claim to know the facts, only what was presented here, and what I have gleaned from a source who is well versed in Texas criminal law.

And PVSax, technically, I believe you are correct. But if the security officer is being employed by the store, he becomes an agent for that store. If he asks you to leave and you don't, you are trespassing, sign or no sign.
 
bottom line: The rent a cop was wrong, overstepped his rent-a-cop duties power for Walmart and the two young men will get paid....and he will be reprimanded and probably sent to the house...Hurt some more...:bawling:

Opening at this walmart!!!! Anybody know somebody wanting this job? :lol:
 
chocalate_topaz said:
bottom line: The rent a cop was wrong, overstepped his rent-a-cop duties power for Walmart and the two young men will get paid....and he will be reprimanded and probably sent to the house...Hurt some more...:bawling:

Opening at this walmart!!!! Anybody know somebody wanting this job? :lol:
Click to expand...

Those boys aren't getting nada. If they bring that silly case to court, it will most likely be thrown out. :lol:

The security guard might be "reprimanded". That is, educated on exactly what the law is in that jurisdiction and how to handle the situation better. But, I seriously doubt either of his jobs are in jeopardy.
 
SUJagFan said:
Those boys aren't getting nada. If they bring that silly case to court, it will most likely be thrown out. :lol:

The security guard might be "reprimanded". That is, educated on exactly what the law is in that jurisdiction and how to handle the situation better. But, I seriously doubt either of his jobs are in jeopardy.
Click to expand...

+1
 
An untrained Policemen is the worst human being you can come in contact with.

Polceman: I am officer John Doe. Why are you taping this property?

Young man: I am taping for this reason

Policemen: Once he receives the information and he determines their answer has merit or not, then the officer could properly say Wal Mart has a no taping policy. Since I have spoken with you I need to see some identification just in case something comes up later. You are not being put on report but I need this information for my records. After something like this has taken place and they refuse to comply, the officer must take some action.
 
SUJagFan said:
The security guard might be "reprimanded". That is, educated on exactly what the law is in that jurisdiction and how to handle the situation better. But, I seriously doubt either of his jobs are in jeopardy.
Click to expand...

Actually his extra job could be in jeopardy since he has to have approval to work a extra job from his main employer. All police officers have to submit a form to his police dept for approval of any extra jobs. Some departments don't approve all extra jobs and they have right to approval for them because they are the ones that hold that officers certification.
 
Fiyah said:
Actually his extra job could be in jeopardy since he has to have approval to work a extra job from his main employer. All police officers have to submit a form to his police dept for approval of any extra jobs. Some departments don't approve all extra jobs and they have right to approval for them because they are the ones that hold that officers certification.
Click to expand...

:|

That has nothing to do with this situation.

My point was that I don't think his job will be in jeopardy because of this incident.

I know several police officers. Almost all of them moonlight as something else - several as security guards. If they have to get approval from the department, so be it. I don't see how that is relevant to the encounter with those kids at all.
 
SUJagFan said:
:|

That has nothing to do with this situation.

My point was that I don't think his job will be in jeopardy because of this incident.

I know several police officers. Almost all of them moonlight as something else - several as security guards. If they have to get approval from the department, so be it. I don't see how that is relevant to the encounter with those kids at all.
Click to expand...

Why?

If his supervisor saw this video and deemed that he didn't represent the department in the right manner they can tell him that he can't do any extra jobs. In doing this not only does it take away his extra income but he will be watched much closely as a officer in that department. Pct 5 don't play when it comes down to how their officers act on duty and on extra jobs.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top