True story in light of the current LEO threads
- Thread starter jsalcedo
- Start date
- Status
spartacus2002
Member
Oh, yeah, that's it, young Mitch and Sandy got what they deserved for not being good little sheeple and running home to cower under their beds
If the story is accurately portrayed in the initial post,then I'm sorry but I cannot justify cops beating the S*** out of a young couple just for being where the cops didn't want them to be.
Mitch and Sandy ought to sue, if only to get those thug cops fired -- if it actually occurred as told here.
Johnny Guest
Moderator In Memoriam
Thanks, Moose.
JPG
JPG
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
If I were Mitch, I'd be suing for millions of dollars. There's no justification for police lawlessness.
Mike Irwin
Member
"Mitch is considering suing the police department but has no real hopes of even recovering his legal expenses."
I don't see why he feels that way, unless his attorney is telling him that.
Getting the video released on discovery, and presenting it to a jury, can go a LONG way toward evening the score.
I'm REALLY surprised that the video wasn't "lost" before it ever hit the Grand Jury.
I don't see why he feels that way, unless his attorney is telling him that.
Getting the video released on discovery, and presenting it to a jury, can go a LONG way toward evening the score.
I'm REALLY surprised that the video wasn't "lost" before it ever hit the Grand Jury.
For everyone who is saying Mitch and Sandy should sue , civil and criminal, it is tough beyond comprehension to deal with a situation like this. It sounds like he was beaten pretty bad, do you think he can go through the legal process against the police and get restitution? When you get smashed against pavement for turning the wrong corner and asking a stupid question, no civilized process will restore justice for what you were put through. The cops will lie, the video tapes will be edited. He was probably intoxicated and at best the courts will drop the charges, cover his legal fees and give him a nominal settlement. Even if he does get justice, he will become a "marked man" in town, where he'll wonder at every police stop if the cop knows who he is and might seek revenge. It's not a cut and dry case where they collect damages. Keeping quiet can seem like a better outcome if you have gone through a situation like this.
TheeBadOne
Member
I suspect that if there's a tape and it shows anything even remotely like the posts claim here he could reap $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ from the Police Dept. Look at how much Rodney got $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. If the conduct is outrageous there is more than enough money for every attorney on the planet to chase. Money is not an issue here.
spartacus2002
Member
I'm not saying that a lawsuit would make him whole, but it would bring negative publicity so the cops might think twice before abusing people, plus it might get those particular cops fired.
As many of you may be aware from my prior posts, I am not one to give definite yes or no opinions on particular incidents. This one is no different. I do not condone the actions of so called “rogue cops.†Police brutality should be treated as the criminal act that it is. However, I also recognize that there usually are two sides of a story. It also is human nature to put one’s own argument in the best light when playing in the realm of public opinion.
Personally, I think there were a few things missing from the initial account of this incident. Some came to light later in the thread. The initial post did not mention a riot, other than to say the police involved in the encounter were wearing riot gear, while a later post mentions the “Mardi Gras riots.†Was there some form of civil disturbance going on? That tends to change the equation from a police officer’s point of view, in terms of the compliance that they expect when they tell people to move up the street, and in terms of the time that they have to do things like stopping what they are doing and engaging in conversation with people who want their badge numbers.
The initial account of the incident does mention that the people involved were participating in a Mardi Gras celebration, but it is not until later in the post that there is mention that the person was offered a plea bargain that included 1 year in an alcohol treatment program. Now, while I recognize that police and/or DA’s can pile on charges, I see no mention in the post as to exactly how much alcohol the person involved in this incident may have consumed, if any. Having worked 6 Mardi Gras seasons in New Orleans, I would say that individual and crowd attitude can run from “just having some rowdy fun,†slow compliance, .10 drunks, to full blown, obnoxious, physically combative, .30+ drunks, and education, wealth and social status have nothing to do with it. They may look great in court a few days later, but it doesn’t change their attitude, intoxicated state and actions the night of the incident.
Unaware that the police were clearing streets? When you see a bunch of cops in a line dressed in riot gear? I dunno, maybe the police weren’t displayed in sufficient array to give the correct impression, or maybe the people involved were too intoxicated to know, or maybe they just didn’t care. Again, I have to fall back on my Mardi Gras experience and say that it really runs the gamut here. However, I have been amazed at the number of people who will attempt to cross (i.e. run over) or circumvent barricades and real live police officers. This occurs with people on foot and in vehicles. That doesn’t mean that Mitch and Sandy necessarily fell into this category.
Grand jury review. The argument is that the fact that the grand jury failed to indict means that the police were wrong. This does not follow. Initially, I must admit that I do not know the particulars of Texas law, but I suspect that, like many states, grand juries only review potential felony offenses, not city misdemeanor offenses. Assuming that this is correct, this only means that the grand jury did not find probable cause to indict for the felony charge. It does not mean that there was not probable cause to arrest for a crime. Second, the police, in their anger, may have made a tactical error and upcharged the guy on a felony charge when a misdemeanor disturbing the peace or public intoxication charge could have been brought or sustained. Note that I am not saying that the police or the person involved in the incident were right or wrong, just pointing out some considerations that would be relevant to the inquiry. I also would be interested in knowing why Mitch was charged with a felony and Sandy was only charged with a misdemeanor.
As to a potential civil settlement, and the amount, that doesn’t mean much. Litigants who consider settling are usually considering the cost of defense and the risk of a runaway jury.
I’m not saying that any of the people involved here were right or wrong, but I do think that there are some facts that we don’t know, that would have a bearing on the incident. I would need to know a lot more before making a decision on this one.
Flame suit on.
Personally, I think there were a few things missing from the initial account of this incident. Some came to light later in the thread. The initial post did not mention a riot, other than to say the police involved in the encounter were wearing riot gear, while a later post mentions the “Mardi Gras riots.†Was there some form of civil disturbance going on? That tends to change the equation from a police officer’s point of view, in terms of the compliance that they expect when they tell people to move up the street, and in terms of the time that they have to do things like stopping what they are doing and engaging in conversation with people who want their badge numbers.
The initial account of the incident does mention that the people involved were participating in a Mardi Gras celebration, but it is not until later in the post that there is mention that the person was offered a plea bargain that included 1 year in an alcohol treatment program. Now, while I recognize that police and/or DA’s can pile on charges, I see no mention in the post as to exactly how much alcohol the person involved in this incident may have consumed, if any. Having worked 6 Mardi Gras seasons in New Orleans, I would say that individual and crowd attitude can run from “just having some rowdy fun,†slow compliance, .10 drunks, to full blown, obnoxious, physically combative, .30+ drunks, and education, wealth and social status have nothing to do with it. They may look great in court a few days later, but it doesn’t change their attitude, intoxicated state and actions the night of the incident.
Unaware that the police were clearing streets? When you see a bunch of cops in a line dressed in riot gear? I dunno, maybe the police weren’t displayed in sufficient array to give the correct impression, or maybe the people involved were too intoxicated to know, or maybe they just didn’t care. Again, I have to fall back on my Mardi Gras experience and say that it really runs the gamut here. However, I have been amazed at the number of people who will attempt to cross (i.e. run over) or circumvent barricades and real live police officers. This occurs with people on foot and in vehicles. That doesn’t mean that Mitch and Sandy necessarily fell into this category.
Grand jury review. The argument is that the fact that the grand jury failed to indict means that the police were wrong. This does not follow. Initially, I must admit that I do not know the particulars of Texas law, but I suspect that, like many states, grand juries only review potential felony offenses, not city misdemeanor offenses. Assuming that this is correct, this only means that the grand jury did not find probable cause to indict for the felony charge. It does not mean that there was not probable cause to arrest for a crime. Second, the police, in their anger, may have made a tactical error and upcharged the guy on a felony charge when a misdemeanor disturbing the peace or public intoxication charge could have been brought or sustained. Note that I am not saying that the police or the person involved in the incident were right or wrong, just pointing out some considerations that would be relevant to the inquiry. I also would be interested in knowing why Mitch was charged with a felony and Sandy was only charged with a misdemeanor.
As to a potential civil settlement, and the amount, that doesn’t mean much. Litigants who consider settling are usually considering the cost of defense and the risk of a runaway jury.
I’m not saying that any of the people involved here were right or wrong, but I do think that there are some facts that we don’t know, that would have a bearing on the incident. I would need to know a lot more before making a decision on this one.
Flame suit on.
brownie0486
Member
WYO :
Here here, someone who actually shows some objectivity and knows how the system works instead of those posters who rant and rave about the evils in blue at the drop of a hat without all the facts.
Your post makes some valid issues and reeks of common sense, I expect that you'll need that retardant suit on in this section of the HR though.
Brownie
Here here, someone who actually shows some objectivity and knows how the system works instead of those posters who rant and rave about the evils in blue at the drop of a hat without all the facts.
Your post makes some valid issues and reeks of common sense, I expect that you'll need that retardant suit on in this section of the HR though.
Brownie
Another poster said: "Good cops know that they may suffer for the actions of the bad cops. "
No, they suffer because the POLICE (big generic term that includes most of them, good or bad) simply WILL NOT discipline themselves. If the good cops won't control the bad cops then they all deserve the disdain with which the public, more and more, views them. Looking the other way may be police tradition but it isn't "good" cop behavior.
If you aren't part of the solution, then you are part (minor to be sure) of the problem.
No, they suffer because the POLICE (big generic term that includes most of them, good or bad) simply WILL NOT discipline themselves. If the good cops won't control the bad cops then they all deserve the disdain with which the public, more and more, views them. Looking the other way may be police tradition but it isn't "good" cop behavior.
If you aren't part of the solution, then you are part (minor to be sure) of the problem.
WYO I respect your questions and they are reasonable.
No Mitch and Sandy did not know there was a riot.
They took Mitches Blood alcohol content at the hospital and it was below the legal limit.
When they left the club they saw no police until they walked
down a street looking for the pizza restaurant.
Mitch offered no resistance and complied with the officers when they beckoned him to come closer. He was thinking they were going to give their badge numbers per his request.
No Mitch and Sandy did not know there was a riot.
They took Mitches Blood alcohol content at the hospital and it was below the legal limit.
When they left the club they saw no police until they walked
down a street looking for the pizza restaurant.
Mitch offered no resistance and complied with the officers when they beckoned him to come closer. He was thinking they were going to give their badge numbers per his request.
TheeBadOne
Member
WYO, excellent, very relevant post.
Intune
Member
"Here here, someone who actually shows some objectivity and knows how the system works instead of those posters who rant and rave about the evils in blue at the drop of a hat without all the facts.
Your post makes some valid issues and reeks of common sense, I expect that you'll need that retardant suit on in this section of the HR though.
Brownie"
Here here, someone who actually shows some objectivity and knows how the system works instead of those posters who rant and rave while realizing that the Thin Blue Line must be manned and defended against civilians at all costs and at the drop of a hat without all the facts.
WYO doesn't need the suit, THAT post raises valid issues and wafts of common sense. Two attributes appreciated in this RABID section of THR.
Sheesh.
Your post makes some valid issues and reeks of common sense, I expect that you'll need that retardant suit on in this section of the HR though.
Brownie"
Here here, someone who actually shows some objectivity and knows how the system works instead of those posters who rant and rave while realizing that the Thin Blue Line must be manned and defended against civilians at all costs and at the drop of a hat without all the facts.
WYO doesn't need the suit, THAT post raises valid issues and wafts of common sense. Two attributes appreciated in this RABID section of THR.
Sheesh.
Orthonym
Member
Better get this one in quickly, for
I think I see Lawdog coming with HIS baton.
I was in Austin once, for about a month, in the Fall of 1992. A friend had hired me to tow his trailer there. Soon after arriving, we went to "check out the scene" on 6th street. I remember thinking that I must be getting old, or something, because I was happy to see pairs of policemen walking around transmitting cool and dignified vibes. Of course, they were wearing ordinary uniforms and had enough hair that there was some point in their owning combs. Sure enough, some rowdy walked up to my buddy, called him a "Maricon" or suchlike and simultaneously smote him a great lick up beside the head. (He's not , just strange-looking; beside the point, anyway). Took him to the e-room where they told us he was slightly concussed. _I_ wanted to notify the law but friend had had a couple or three and thought discretion the better part etc. I was definitely feeling all warm fuzzies for the LEOs then, just for being present and setting a good example.
I think I see Lawdog coming with HIS baton.
I was in Austin once, for about a month, in the Fall of 1992. A friend had hired me to tow his trailer there. Soon after arriving, we went to "check out the scene" on 6th street. I remember thinking that I must be getting old, or something, because I was happy to see pairs of policemen walking around transmitting cool and dignified vibes. Of course, they were wearing ordinary uniforms and had enough hair that there was some point in their owning combs.
Sure enough, some rowdy walked up to my buddy, called him a "Maricon" or suchlike and simultaneously smote him a great lick up beside the head. (He's not , just strange-looking; beside the point, anyway). Took him to the e-room where they told us he was slightly concussed. _I_ wanted to notify the law but friend had had a couple or three and thought discretion the better part etc. I was definitely feeling all warm fuzzies for the LEOs then, just for being present and setting a good example.jsalcedo, if your friend was not intoxicated at the time of the incident, then that is a good point in his favor that no doubt will be a factor in any litigation. (I will not get into issues of timing of testing, or whether levels are on the upswing or downswing, although the lawyers will probably deal with it. I also have assumed from your post that blood tests also were run for drugs, and that there was no evidence of that, either.) However, it does not automatically mean that he is innocent, any more than his being intoxicated would give the police the right to use excessive force. I also will tell you that I have been around tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of intoxicated people who were no problem as long as they weren’t driving, passed out, or standing in the middle of traffic, so even an intoxicated state is not an automatic problem in my view.
If you excuse your friend because he did not know that a riot was going on, then you also must excuse the police for not knowing that your friend did not know that a riot was going on. I would say that the fact that the police were in riot gear was a good point in the police’s favor, unless riot gear is every day wear in that community.
Just out of curiosity, can you give us the “official police version†of the incident, as reflected in an incident report? Ultimately, though, if it just comes down to “he said, she said,†then it is merely a credibility determination that can only be resolved by a judicial fact finder after thorough cross examination of both sides’ witnesses. I have friends who have told me things that I know to be 100% true, although disputed by others, but I don’t see any way that I could prove it on a forum like THR, as good as it is, and I wouldn’t try.
If you excuse your friend because he did not know that a riot was going on, then you also must excuse the police for not knowing that your friend did not know that a riot was going on. I would say that the fact that the police were in riot gear was a good point in the police’s favor, unless riot gear is every day wear in that community.
Just out of curiosity, can you give us the “official police version†of the incident, as reflected in an incident report? Ultimately, though, if it just comes down to “he said, she said,†then it is merely a credibility determination that can only be resolved by a judicial fact finder after thorough cross examination of both sides’ witnesses. I have friends who have told me things that I know to be 100% true, although disputed by others, but I don’t see any way that I could prove it on a forum like THR, as good as it is, and I wouldn’t try.
WYO
As soon as the final disposition of the case is over
I would like to put all the information and the videotape here if mitch will permit it.
I really don't mind folks doubting the events depicted.
Being able to discriminate and judge based on real evidence seperates the high road from all the other boards.
If the mitch story was posted on DU I think I would lose my lunch
at the response.
As soon as the final disposition of the case is over
I would like to put all the information and the videotape here if mitch will permit it.
I really don't mind folks doubting the events depicted.
Being able to discriminate and judge based on real evidence seperates the high road from all the other boards.
If the mitch story was posted on DU I think I would lose my lunch
at the response.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Geech and TarpleyG., I am not saying Mitch and Sandy followed the cops around and I am not saying their rights were or were not violated. Their rights may have been totally trampled for all I know, but one thing is certain from these threads is that they get presented with a definite one-side bias and so what is actual versus what is poor me victim-perspective isn't readily clear from the posts.
My point was and is simple. Mitch and Sandy need a reality check on understanding dangerous situations. If the police are out in riot gear, common sense would tell you that you should consider being a long way away from there. Apparently, Mitch and Sandy had no understanding of the situation, why the cops were in riot gear, and why they were ordered from the area. Apparently, whatever initial roughing up they experienced was not enough for the warning bells to go off in their heads.
The story starts to sounds like poor victims of the police crap that they were physically assaulted by the Austin police via being jabbed with sticks and thrown against a wall before being ordered from the area and so what did they do? Did they get in their care and drive away from down town and call the police and report being assaulted? No. No apparently, Mitch and Sandy weren't too bothered by the supposed assault and felt that walked a few streets over to grab a nice bite to eat would be a good idea. They were so shaken up by the encounter with the police that they didn't decide to get to their car and leave the area until AFTER eating some pizza. There are lots of late night pizza places in Austin. Why they didn't leave the area before that is very strange. Does eating pizza then help you to think clearly enough that then you should leave the area?
There is something very definitely wrong with the story in how the events were presented. I really question why it is that Mitch and Sandy did not flee the area and go far away after their first supposed assault by the Austin cops in riot gear.
Sure enough, maybe their rights were trampled, but they could have avoided a lot of the hardship of this entire process had they actually left the area (not just gone a few streets over) and considered their option from somewhere else. The Police were there in riot gear, roughed them up, and Mitch and Sandy somehow figured their were safe by moving over a few streets, on foot. That couple really needs to consider some classes in risk assessment as their educations have apparently short sheeted them in common sense.
Just curious, given that these are public events with public records involved, why all the clandestine crap about calling them Mitch and Sandy? What is wrong with using their real names so that we can search out more of the story ourselves as opposed to just having to accept the one-sided victim tale as is?
My point was and is simple. Mitch and Sandy need a reality check on understanding dangerous situations. If the police are out in riot gear, common sense would tell you that you should consider being a long way away from there. Apparently, Mitch and Sandy had no understanding of the situation, why the cops were in riot gear, and why they were ordered from the area. Apparently, whatever initial roughing up they experienced was not enough for the warning bells to go off in their heads.
The story starts to sounds like poor victims of the police crap that they were physically assaulted by the Austin police via being jabbed with sticks and thrown against a wall before being ordered from the area and so what did they do? Did they get in their care and drive away from down town and call the police and report being assaulted? No. No apparently, Mitch and Sandy weren't too bothered by the supposed assault and felt that walked a few streets over to grab a nice bite to eat would be a good idea. They were so shaken up by the encounter with the police that they didn't decide to get to their car and leave the area until AFTER eating some pizza. There are lots of late night pizza places in Austin. Why they didn't leave the area before that is very strange. Does eating pizza then help you to think clearly enough that then you should leave the area?
There is something very definitely wrong with the story in how the events were presented. I really question why it is that Mitch and Sandy did not flee the area and go far away after their first supposed assault by the Austin cops in riot gear.
Sure enough, maybe their rights were trampled, but they could have avoided a lot of the hardship of this entire process had they actually left the area (not just gone a few streets over) and considered their option from somewhere else. The Police were there in riot gear, roughed them up, and Mitch and Sandy somehow figured their were safe by moving over a few streets, on foot. That couple really needs to consider some classes in risk assessment as their educations have apparently short sheeted them in common sense.
Just curious, given that these are public events with public records involved, why all the clandestine crap about calling them Mitch and Sandy? What is wrong with using their real names so that we can search out more of the story ourselves as opposed to just having to accept the one-sided victim tale as is?
ojibweindian
Member
Or maybe the whole incident could have been avoided if the police in this case treated those two correctly.
Intune
Member
We gave you the chance to move along with just the wind knocked out of you. Do not approach us when we are thinking of a mission, planning for a mission, staging for a mission, conducting a mission, extracting from a mission, debriefing from a mission. We are on a mission! You must NEVER approach us. If we want something WE will approach you!
Now you've done it, you forced us to assail you. We must now charge you with something so as to have a bargaining chip in case someone witnessed this um, failure to comply with a directive. Yeah, that's it.
Now, if ze papers are nicht in order vee send you to der kamps! Vee are der State, und das Power!
Now you've done it, you forced us to assail you. We must now charge you with something so as to have a bargaining chip in case someone witnessed this um, failure to comply with a directive. Yeah, that's it.
Now, if ze papers are nicht in order vee send you to der kamps! Vee are der State, und das Power!
Edward429451
member
Sooo, Do not question Authority, because the nod of plausible deniability will go to the authorities? Did I put that together right?
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Intune & Edward, I think you're more than a little bit overboard. I've known lots of Austintatious cops since I moved back there in 1963, and even during these last 20 years of just visiting Austin. While some of them might not be as patient and gentle as I've observed in the past, Gestapo-like behavior is in no way anywhere near common. Personally, I'd call it highly anomalous--as in rare and unusual.
And, as usual, we don't really know all of the story...
Art
And, as usual, we don't really know all of the story...
Art
El Tejon
Member
Isn't Austin about 400K to 500K in population? So APD is a PD of several hundred officers?
Going to be good and bad in any population. PDs no different. Did the DA prosecute the po-po? USA take any action?
I've been in Tejas a bunch. Never had any interaction with the police down there, but I've been to skul with more than several. I find them just like anyone else, anywhere else (cool accents aside).
Going to be good and bad in any population. PDs no different. Did the DA prosecute the po-po? USA take any action?
I've been in Tejas a bunch. Never had any interaction with the police down there, but I've been to skul with more than several. I find them just like anyone else, anywhere else (cool accents aside).
Edward429451
member
Aw, I know, Art. Just that stubborn American indignation creeping in in the form of sarcasm. The problem is, we Americans never know who's the good cops and who's the JBT types until its too late to be able to do anything about it.
This premise of bow down to all and hope for mercy and reasonableness is taxing to the spirit of the American people. Specially since the JBT types seem to be increasing in number and incidents.
This premise of bow down to all and hope for mercy and reasonableness is taxing to the spirit of the American people. Specially since the JBT types seem to be increasing in number and incidents.
- Status