Texas Cop Placed on Leave After Pulling Gun on Teens at a Pool Party

[Hugor Hill]

At :50 he started telling some selected kids to get on the ground for no reason.

At around 1:15 he started cuffing kids for no reason.

At around 2:30 he started threatening a bunch of girls to leave for "mouthing".

At 3:00 he dragged a girl out of the crow, put her to the ground, for what we assume to be "mouthing".

At 3:10 or so he pull his gun out because a few kids came around him because they are afraid of the girl's well being.

At 3:20 onwards he kept forcibly abusing the girl on the ground, including putting his own weight onto her back with both his knees.

At 4:05 he threatened to the camera dude to get out of there for no reason.

The cops were called in to respond to kids who were 'actively fighting', and they ended up physical assaulting and arresting some 14 tear old girl, threatening others who obviously weren't 'actively fighting'.

Well done.

[Down by the River]

There are people who actively want to hurt police officers. If you're in uniform, you're a target. This gives police officers a reason to be concerned for their safety.

What this video illustrates, to me, is that some police officers need to become more aware of when they are actually being threatened versus when they simply need to establish order. That one cop runs onto the scene like a bat out of hell. Saying that officers were initially calm is ridiculous. Some officers may have been, but that one cop was coming in hot. He failed to recognize the appropriate level of force necessary to diffuse the situation. He failed to accurately assess the level of danger he was in. All that one girl was doing was walking around. Unless an officer specifically cautions you or places you under arrest, you are free to move. Officers have no right to force you to stand where you are, sit on the grass, etc. They can ask you, but that is it.

The officer wanted his word to be the word of God, and when his orders were not directly followed, he used an unnecessary degree of force.

There are comments in the Bill C-24 thread about how 'if you aren't breaking a law, you don't have any reason to fear the law'. This video shows otherwise.

[Provost]

Unless an officer specifically cautions you or places you under arrest, you are free to move. Officers have no right to force you to stand where you are, sit on the grass, etc. They can ask you, but that is it.

You are simply wrong. Police have the authority under the law to detain you for many purposes including preservation or evidence and identifying you. Cautioning you or formally arresting you has to be done within a reasonable time and in consideration of the volatility of the situation.

Using the same logic of your misunderstanding of your "rights" would mean that you don't "really" have to stop when a police officer tries to pull you over for speeding... they can only ask you and you can refuse.

I don't know where people get these myths about what authority they or police have and why they think that they are experts when they are entirely clueless.

Your job in a police interaction is to do what you are instructed to do. Their job and legal authority is to use their discretion to keep everyone safe and enforce the law.

You do not have a right to disagree with them or argue your case or civil liberties at the time of the interaction. That is the job of highly trained lawyers and judges in the court system who know a whole lot more than you or even the police officer does. There is nothing in your rights that allow you to take on the role of the court system in some sort of street level trial of your own devising.

Crowding around, yelling, being threatening, etc means that the threat level faced by the officer goes up and their training and the law requires them to increase their level of force to respond to that. You can see that the officers who are talking with teens who are calmly staying put and co-operating are able to use less force than the ones dealing with the unruly ones.

Feel free to take pictures, complain to the appropriate watchdog agencies and such afterwards if you feel your treatment was inappropriate. THAT is your right.

[etsen3]

The ninja roll by the cop that goes apecrap lol.

Laughed at that. Clearly someone's been watching too many action cop movies. Reminded me of 21 Jump Street.

[Hugor Hill]

You are simply wrong. Police have the authority under the law to detain you for many purposes including preservation or evidence and identifying you. Cautioning you or formally arresting you has to be done within a reasonable time and in consideration of the volatility of the situation.

Using the same logic of your misunderstanding of your "rights" would mean that you don't "really" have to stop when a police officer tries to pull you over for speeding... they can only ask you and you can refuse.

I don't know where people get these myths about what authority they or police have and why they think that they are experts when they are entirely clueless.

Your job in a police interaction is to do what you are instructed to do. Their job and legal authority is to use their discretion to keep everyone safe and enforce the law.

You do not have a right to disagree with them or argue your case or civil liberties at the time of the interaction. That is the job of highly trained lawyers and judges in the court system who know a whole lot more than you or even the police officer does. There is nothing in your rights that allow you to take on the role of the court system in some sort of street level trial of your own devising.

Crowding around, yelling, being threatening, etc means that the threat level faced by the officer goes up and their training and the law requires them to increase their level of force to respond to that. You can see that the officers who are talking with teens who are calmly staying put and co-operating are able to use less force than the ones dealing with the unruly ones.

Feel free to take pictures, complain to the appropriate watchdog agencies and such afterwards if you feel your treatment was inappropriate. THAT is your right.

I'm sure you are 100% factually. I think ultimately we are here to question the police officer's ability to exercise his discretion.

And I'm sure by 'complain', you mean 'forward your concerns'.

[Down by the River]

You are simply wrong. Police have the authority under the law to detain you for many purposes including preservation or evidence and identifying you. Cautioning you or formally arresting you has to be done within a reasonable time and in consideration of the volatility of the situation.

Using the same logic of your misunderstanding of your "rights" would mean that you don't "really" have to stop when a police officer tries to pull you over for speeding... they can only ask you and you can refuse.

I don't know where people get these myths about what authority they or police have and why they think that they are experts when they are entirely clueless.

Your job in a police interaction is to do what you are instructed to do. Their job and legal authority is to use their discretion to keep everyone safe and enforce the law.

You do not have a right to disagree with them or argue your case or civil liberties at the time of the interaction. That is the job of highly trained lawyers and judges in the court system who know a whole lot more than you or even the police officer does. There is nothing in your rights that allow you to take on the role of the court system in some sort of street level trial of your own devising.

Crowding around, yelling, being threatening, etc means that the threat level faced by the officer goes up and their training and the law requires them to increase their level of force to respond to that. You can see that the officers who are talking with teens who are calmly staying put and co-operating are able to use less force than the ones dealing with the unruly ones.

Feel free to take pictures, complain to the appropriate watchdog agencies and such afterwards if you feel your treatment was inappropriate. THAT is your right.

R v. Mann.

Police have no power to stop you unless they reasonably believe you have committed an offense or are connected in some way to that crime. Key word is reasonable. Police officers cannot use 'he was black' as a reasonable argument.

In addition, if an officer does choose to detain, reason for detention must be explained. Obviously, the case we are all talking about was in the US, with different laws, but I didn't see much of an explanation in the video.

That's my argument. Please point to the relevant legislation backing yours.

[thema]

As someone who spent 15 years as a police officer, I can't see what the fuss is about here.

There were many white and black youths who were hanging back and being entirely ignored and left alone.

The girl was resisting being handcuffed, two other girls came right up on the officer while he was arresting her and got shoved back. Two young men rushed at the police officer while he was in a vulnerable position with who knows what intention... were they going to kick him in the head? Punch him? Try to wrestle the girl away from him? Stab him? How does he know what they are planning. Perfectly acceptable reason to pull your weapon to ensure your and everyone else's safety.

When they backed off he didn't shoot them and instructed a couple of other officers to go arrest them.

End of story.

Can you imagine yourself after being told to back away a dozen times running at a police officer who is arresting someone? I would advise against it unless you want to risk getting shot. They don't know if you are a homicidal maniac or some jackass who just wants to run their mouth off and have to react as if you are the former.

The dead Edmonton police officer last night can attest to why.

Only a former cop would equate the Edmonton situation with this one. With civilian America becoming more heavily armed by the day and incidents like this happening almost daily you can be sure that when the pimple comes to a head things will get messy. And, yes, it WILL be racially motivated.

[Tre Mac]

As someone who spent 15 years as a police officer, I can't see what the fuss is about here.

There were many white and black youths who were hanging back and being entirely ignored and left alone.

The girl was resisting being handcuffed, two other girls came right up on the officer while he was arresting her and got shoved back. Two young men rushed at the police officer while he was in a vulnerable position with who knows what intention... were they going to kick him in the head? Punch him? Try to wrestle the girl away from him? Stab him? How does he know what they are planning. Perfectly acceptable reason to pull your weapon to ensure your and everyone else's safety.

When they backed off he didn't shoot them and instructed a couple of other officers to go arrest them.

End of story.

Can you imagine yourself after being told to back away a dozen times running at a police officer who is arresting someone? I would advise against it unless you want to risk getting shot. They don't know if you are a homicidal maniac or some jackass who just wants to run their mouth off and have to react as if you are the former.

The dead Edmonton police officer last night can attest to why.

Of course you cant see what the fuss is about, you are part of the problem.

[Bill Sikes]

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/06/08/the-full-story-of-the-mckinney-texas-pool-mob-inside-the-craig-ranch-subdivision/

[Hugor Hill]

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/06/08/the-full-story-of-the-mckinney-texas-pool-mob-inside-the-craig-ranch-subdivision/

That's a thorough but one-sided piece, and it is missing the 2nd most important aspect of the case:

Did the police arrest the teens who were fighting?

Who did the police arrest instead?

The answer to both questions reflect poorly on the police officers on scene.

[awalk]

That's a thorough but one-sided piece, and it is missing the 2nd most important aspect of the case:

Did the police arrest the teens who were fighting?

Who did the police arrest instead?

The answer to both questions reflect poorly on the police officers on scene.

Teen was fighting with an adult.

[Bill Sikes]

That's a thorough but one-sided piece, and it is missing the 2nd most important aspect of the case:

Did the police arrest the teens who were fighting?

Who did the police arrest instead?

The answer to both questions reflect poorly on the police officers on scene.

So just ignore who actually CAUSED to problem and immediatly blame the police, good thinking, Al Sharpton would be proud of you.

[Mr. Ambien]

Only a former cop would equate the Edmonton situation with this one. With civilian America becoming more heavily armed by the day and incidents like this happening almost daily you can be sure that when the pimple comes to a head things will get messy. And, yes, it WILL be racially motivated.

It's interesting that you talk about heavily armed and all this, they looked like regular police officers to me, not SWAT or military members with AK-47's and tactical gear. They were also at one point calmly talking. They didn't go from zero to Rambo. These idiots were also giving very simple instructions even a five year old could understand -- "sit on the ground", "get across the street", "get back", and so on. No one who is obsessed with the officers in this case will be taken seriously. It's a very clear problem with people defying orders from the police, and in one case in that video, rushing at a ???? officer detaining someone.. they aren't victims, they are morons.

[Hugor Hill]

So just ignore who actually CAUSED to problem and immediatly blame the police, good thinking, Al Sharpton would be proud of you.

The teens who engaged in fighting ran away before the first cop showed up. I believe the cops should've gone after them instead of hanging around and arresting people who did not engage in fighting.

[awalk]

Teenagers causing trouble and cops racial profiling. Sounds like a normal day in the USA

[Hugor Hill]

Teenagers causing trouble and cops racial profiling. Sounds like a normal day in the USA

True dat

[Mr. Ambien]

You know what they say, it's racial profiling if police follow up on a call where black people are causing trouble. The non-racist protocol for law enforcement is to ignore it if it's black people.

"911 what's your emergency?"

"Some people are fighting and causing a ruckus at a party"

"Are they black?"

"Yes, it seems a number of them are"

"Sorry, it would be racist to follow up on this.. we don't want foaming at the mouth outraged SJW's to illogically call us racist, therefore, we stop doing police work where it seems blacks are the perps.. that's how we combat racism and bridge the racial divide"

Those poor oppressed trouble makers. I bet whoever called the police on them for breaking the law were racist too.

[awalk]

You know what they say, it's racial profiling if police follow up on a call where black people are causing trouble. The non-racist protocol for law enforcement is to ignore it if it's black people.

"911 what's your emergency?"

"Some people are fighting and causing a ruckus at a party"

"Are they black?"

"Yes, it seems a number of them are"

"Sorry, it would be racist to follow up on this.. we don't want foaming at the mouth outraged SJW's to illogically call us racist, therefore, we stop doing police work where it seems blacks are the perps.. that's how we combat racism and bridge the racial divide"

Those poor oppressed trouble makers. I bet whoever called the police on them for breaking the law were racist too.

Until I moved to the USA I had no clue - as a young white male - how bad racial profiling is here. It's easy to negate it because the kids were causing trouble, and they were in the wrong to begin with, but this is a small incident that is a part of a huge huge problem. Get as angry about it as you want, it exists, and this was a small example of it.

And actually, the people who called the cop were allegedly making racial slurs against the black kids, so yea I guess it seems there is a good shot they were acting racist as well.

Wrongs on both sides.

[Hugor Hill]

If it wasn't for racial profiling, the cops would've probably gone after the real trouble makers and none of this would've happened.

[tbone909]

http://abc7.com/news/texas-police-officer-resigns-after-video-shows-him-pushing-teen-girl-to-ground/775287/

Casebolt resigns

McKINNEY, Texas --
The white police officer who was recorded on video pushing a black girl to the ground at a North Texas pool party resigned from the police force Tuesday.

Officer David Eric Casebolt resigned from the McKinney Police Department after almost 10 years on the force, said his attorney, Jane Bishkin of Dallas.

Police Chief Greg Conley confirmed the resignation at a news conference later Tuesday, saying Casebolt had not been pressured.

A video recorded by another teenager and posted online showed Casebolt pushing a bikini-clad black girl to the ground on Friday and brandishing his gun at other black teens after he and other officers responded to complaints about the pool party at a community-owned McKinney swimming pool. The 41-year-old former Texas state trooper was put on administrative leave after the incident.

Conley said a review of the incident video showed Casebolt's actions were "indefensible," and that "our policies, our training and our practices do not support his actions."

In all, 12 officers responded to the report of fights and a disturbance at the pool party at the Craig Ranch North Community Pool in an affluent area of western McKinney. "Eleven of them performed according to their training," Conley said. Casebolt did not, he said.

"He came into the call out of control and the video showed he was out of control during the incident," Conley said.

Despite Casebolt's resignation, his actions remain under investigation and no decision has been made as to whether charges will be filed against him, Conley said. Charges of interfering with an officer and evading arrest against the only man arrested during Friday's incident have been dropped, Conley said. Everyone else was released.

Bishkin declined to say where Casebolt is now and said the officer had received death threats. The attorney said she would release more information at a news conference Wednesday.

The incident has prompted criticism of the affluent suburb of McKinney north of Dallas, which is among the nation's fastest growing cities, has highly regarded public schools and was ranked by one publication as America's best place to live.

People who demonstrated this week at a McKinney school compared the city to Baltimore and Ferguson, Missouri, where use of force by police triggered widespread protests and violence.

The NAACP is asking the U.S. Department of Justice to review the procedures of the McKinney police force, stopping short of asking for a formal investigation. A review of department policies is needed to ensure officers are responding appropriately to calls involving minorities, the local NAACP chapter said.

Casebolt had been accused of excessive force in a 2007 arrest as part of a federal lawsuit that named him along with other officers. The officers arrested Albert Brown Jr., who authorities said was found with crack cocaine during a traffic stop. Brown, who is black, accused the officers of forcibly searching him after pulling down his pants and slamming his head against a car hood. A defense attorney denied Brown's accusations. The lawsuit was dismissed in 2009.

The city of McKinney also has been the target of lawsuits accusing it of racial segregation in public housing.

A lawsuit in 2008 accused the McKinney Housing Authority of restricting federally subsidized public housing for low-income families to older neighborhoods east of U.S. 75. The lawsuit said that in the Dallas area, 85 percent of those receiving so-called "Section 8" housing vouchers are African Americans.

In 2007, 2,057 of the 2,485 housing units run by landlords willing to accept federal rent subsidy vouchers were on the east side. The lawsuit was settled in 2012 with a consent decree, which is an agreement to take specific actions without admitting guilt.

A message left with the housing authority seeking comment wasn't returned Tuesday.

The scrutiny contrasts with McKinney's high ranking for its quality of life. A Time Inc. publication last year said the city was the best place to live in America, with a median family income in excess of $96,000 and job growth projected at 13 percent. Crime is comparatively low and like other metropolitan suburbs in Texas, McKinney has seen unprecedented expansion. Its population has tripled in the last 15 years to approximately 155,000. About 75 percent of residents are white while nearly 11 percent are black.