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

[peaches5]

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.

I am glad you are not a police officer anymore.

[Mr. Ambien]

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.

You're talking about this huge huge problem that isn't objectively manifested in this video or article. The best evidence to your argument is some "alleged" accusation of someone making racial slurs. Whoopfee-????-doo.

You're talking about militarized police, but that's not manifested in this video either. The cops didn't drive up in tanks or SWAT like trucks, they aren't equipped with military gear, they actually try talking to people first and giving orders before the idiots flip out and cause them to try and contain the scene. Their actions seem more than reasonable here. The officers should be commended for handling the situation well. But because of morons, they're likely going to have to go into hiding. I just hope the populace here in Canada doesn't devolve to this type of idiocy. Props to Provost as well for his insight, it's no surprise rationality is met with such hostility here.

[Hugor Hill]

You're talking about this huge huge problem that isn't objectively manifested in this video or article. The best evidence to your argument is some "alleged" accusation of someone making racial slurs. Whoopfee-????-doo.

You're talking about militarized police, but that's not manifested in this video either. The cops didn't drive up in tanks or SWAT like trucks, they aren't equipped with military gear, they actually try talking to people first and giving orders before the idiots flip out and cause them to try and contain the scene. Their actions seem more than reasonable here. The officers should be commended for handling the situation well. But because of morons, they're likely going to have to go into hiding. I just hope the populace here in Canada doesn't devolve to this type of idiocy. Props to Provost as well for his insight, it's no surprise rationality is met with such hostility here.

He is not talking about militarized police. He is talking about racial profiling. Let me paste his post here:

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.

No militarized police. Yes racial profiling.

It is a very rational post.

And yes rationality is met with hostility here. And lets be clear: you are hostile, we are rational.

[awalk]

You're talking about this huge huge problem that isn't objectively manifested in this video or article. The best evidence to your argument is some "alleged" accusation of someone making racial slurs. Whoopfee-????-doo.

You're talking about militarized police, but that's not manifested in this video either. The cops didn't drive up in tanks or SWAT like trucks, they aren't equipped with military gear, they actually try talking to people first and giving orders before the idiots flip out and cause them to try and contain the scene. Their actions seem more than reasonable here. The officers should be commended for handling the situation well. But because of morons, they're likely going to have to go into hiding. I just hope the populace here in Canada doesn't devolve to this type of idiocy. Props to Provost as well for his insight, it's no surprise rationality is met with such hostility here.

I'll try to hit all your points here, despite your keyboard rage LOL

You're talking about this huge huge problem that isn't objectively manifested in this video or article. The best evidence to your argument is some "alleged" accusation of someone making racial slurs. Whoopfee-????-doo.

To me, it is manifested in the video. Cop ignores 15 year old white kid who is filming on his cell phone while going after all black kids. Cop pulls out gun on unarmed black kid. This is reflective of multiple cases where cops overreact specifically to young black males.

You're talking about militarized police, but that's not manifested in this video either. The cops didn't drive up in tanks or SWAT like trucks, they aren't equipped with military gear, they actually try talking to people first and giving orders before the idiots flip out and cause them to try and contain the scene. Their actions seem more than reasonable here. The officers should be commended for handling the situation well. But because of morons, they're likely going to have to go into hiding. I just hope the populace here in Canada doesn't devolve to this type of idiocy. Props to Provost as well for his insight, it's no surprise rationality is met with such hostility here.

Please show and quote me where I said anything about militarized police? I'm talking about a cop who made some bad decisions and projected racial profiling whether he intended to or not, and this is yet another count of racial profiling that exists along with an overwhelming amount of cases that expose racial profiling in the USA -- not just against black people.

There's really only one person being immensely hostile here - - you.

Both sides made bad choices. Dumb teenage girl trying to be a promoter let a party get way out of hand. Over zealous cop made bad choices on film, shouldn't have pulled his gun, now was forced to resign and his actions were called indefensible by his own chief.

It's okay for there to be wrongs on both sides, it doesn't have to be right vs wrong. Unfortunately there are example of racial profiling here that lump in with a huge problem in this country. It's hard to understand until you witness it first hand. It's hard to understand what it's like to be a young black male in this country who, if you have a problem with the police, you might get killed. I will never understand that, but I'm doing my best to be empathetic. I've had run ins with the police in my foolish youth days, I made mistakes, but I never feared, ever, that they would shoot and kill me. It's just not something I ever had to deal with. So when you see a cop pull a gun on an unarmed teenager, it's alarming...and when that teenager is black, it's ... "here we go again"

[awalk]

My hope is that the increased video scrutiny that is happening lately will allow for better training so that situations like this can be handled without a weapon being drawn. This officer's two partners clearly rush over to stop him from completely losing his cool and pulling the trigger, thank goodness. Last thing this country needs is another unarmed black teenager shot and killed.

[Hugor Hill]

I'll try to hit all your points here, despite your keyboard rage LOL

There's really only one person being immensely hostile here - - you.

Mr. Ambien right now:

[Mr. Ambien]

I'll try to hit all your points here, despite your keyboard rage LOL

You're talking about this huge huge problem that isn't objectively manifested in this video or article. The best evidence to your argument is some "alleged" accusation of someone making racial slurs. Whoopfee-????-doo.

To me, it is manifested in the video. Cop ignores 15 year old white kid who is filming on his cell phone while going after all black kids. Cop pulls out gun on unarmed black kid. This is reflective of multiple cases where cops overreact specifically to young black males.

You're talking about militarized police, but that's not manifested in this video either. The cops didn't drive up in tanks or SWAT like trucks, they aren't equipped with military gear, they actually try talking to people first and giving orders before the idiots flip out and cause them to try and contain the scene. Their actions seem more than reasonable here. The officers should be commended for handling the situation well. But because of morons, they're likely going to have to go into hiding. I just hope the populace here in Canada doesn't devolve to this type of idiocy. Props to Provost as well for his insight, it's no surprise rationality is met with such hostility here.

Please show and quote me where I said anything about militarized police? I'm talking about a cop who made some bad decisions and projected racial profiling whether he intended to or not, and this is yet another count of racial profiling that exists along with an overwhelming amount of cases that expose racial profiling in the USA -- not just against black people.

There's really only one person being immensely hostile here - - you.

Both sides made bad choices. Dumb teenage girl trying to be a promoter let a party get way out of hand. Over zealous cop made bad choices on film, shouldn't have pulled his gun, now was forced to resign and his actions were called indefensible by his own chief.

It's okay for there to be wrongs on both sides, it doesn't have to be right vs wrong. Unfortunately there are example of racial profiling here that lump in with a huge problem in this country. It's hard to understand until you witness it first hand. It's hard to understand what it's like to be a young black male in this country who, if you have a problem with the police, you might get killed. I will never understand that, but I'm doing my best to be empathetic. I've had run ins with the police in my foolish youth days, I made mistakes, but I never feared, ever, that they would shoot and kill me. It's just not something I ever had to deal with. So when you see a cop pull a gun on an unarmed teenager, it's alarming...and when that teenager is black, it's ... "here we go again"

"An unarmed teenager"

It was not one person coming after the officer.

I love the projection about "rage", but it's clear this is an overreaction on you and like minded people. It's also fodder for red herring arguments about racist police and militarized police that isn't even in the equation.

There's no two sides are wrong here.. it's police containing a bunch of idiots and a movement that wants to be taken serously whining about everything under the sun. I applaud the police, they did a great job here.

[Down by the River]

Props to Provost as well for his insight, it's no surprise rationality is met with such hostility here.

I quoted the legal precedent explaining why police are not allowed to force you to stop if they have no reasonable grounds to believe you've been involved in a crime. I'd say that is a relatively rationale response, yet, some people continue to argue that the officer's actions were justified despite (a) his actions being contrary to Canadian law, and ( his own department's admonishment of his actions.

How can libertarians argue, on the one hand, the government has no right to say which firearms a person can or cannot own, yet in the same breath favour actions by the state that unlawfully restrict movement by their citizens?

Now, if it were me, and a police officer asked me to stop, I'd stop. I have nothing to hide, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and allow them to approach and speak to me. That said, others should be allowed to exercise their right at any point in time, that is the purpose of rights. You don't need permission or justification to exercise them.

[Mr. Ambien]

I quoted the legal precedent explaining why police are not allowed to force you to stop if they have no reasonable grounds to believe you've been involved in a crime. I'd say that is a relatively rationale response, yet, some people continue to argue that the officer's actions were justified despite (a) his actions being contrary to Canadian law, and ( his own department's admonishment of his actions.

How can libertarians argue, on the one hand, the government has no right to say which firearms a person can or cannot own, yet in the same breath favour actions by the state that unlawfully restrict movement by their citizens?

Now, if it were me, and a police officer asked me to stop, I'd stop. I have nothing to hide, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and allow them to approach and speak to me. That said, others should be allowed to exercise their right at any point in time, that is the purpose of rights. You don't need permission or justification to exercise them.

If you feel so confident about your rights to disobey an officer's orders here, feel free to demonstrate it. I somehow doubt in Texas they'll care about what you think of Canadian laws or what your protestations are. It's not a civil rights issue defying an officer containing a scene.

[ilduce39]

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.

Pretty much. The fact that teens are being threatened by police officers because they share the skin colour of people who are causing trouble is the definition of racial profiling.

Also, every other police officer that I could see was under control.. This guy was a dangerous moron who escalated the situation to nearly lethal levels. Deserves all the criticism he's getting.

[riffraff]

If I was that girls dad, I'd find that cop and deal with the assault charge.

Edit:

Apparently now an ex cop. Even better.

[Hugor Hill]

"An unarmed teenager"

It was not one person coming after the officer.

I love the projection about "rage", but it's clear this is an overreaction on you and like minded people. It's also fodder for red herring arguments about racist police and militarized police that isn't even in the equation.

There's no two sides are wrong here.. it's police containing a bunch of idiots and a movement that wants to be taken serously whining about everything under the sun. I applaud the police, they did a great job here.

All wrong. Everything you say is wrong. 100%.

ps. Police everywhere have a tough job to do and we are glad they are doing a good job blah blah blah you know the rest.

[Provost]

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.

They had been instructed to leave many many times and did not. They were trespassing and interfering with a police officer right in the video. That isn't even a reasonable grounds argument right from the outset as there were crimes to arrest them for that the police and anyone in the video had actually seen them commit.

You purposefully left out the remainder of R v. Mann because I guess you think having taken a 1st year criminology course or Googling stuff would impress people.

It clearly spells out that police are allowed to stop you and get identification as part of an investigative detention.... in layman's terms, while they figure out what the heck is going on and who deserves to be arrested. That is clearly what is happening here, they are sitting down the people who seemed to be agitating and not co-operating until they got things in order and were able to talk to witnesses and everyone to see who were the ones who were the troublemakers.\

As for the guy resigning, there pretty much wasn't any choice regardless of whether he was guilty of anything or not. He had already been convicted in the media and in the minds of people who have not a shred of knowledge or experience on the matter and based on a bit of video.

There certainly was not time to do an investigation into what happened between the incident and now to determine if the guy was actually guilty of anything. Those types of investigations take months, not days.

What almost certainly happened was a political decision to avoid any possibility of Ferguson type riots and further problems by making a deal that he resign yet keep his pension and most probably a very healthy severance package. A deal was made to protect the city (the employer) from liability, he wasn't fired because they would face a pretty swift wrongful dismissal lawsuit and he wasn't kept emplpyed to avoid other issues. Obviously all parties agreed to the deal in order to announce it so quickly.

It is probably for the best as he would have a tough time in the future dealing with citizens in the town and it would endanger him, his partners, and the public if he kept working.

[Provost]

It is sad that the media does 24hr wall to wall coverage on trivial crap like this when there are serious and real examples of racial discrimination in the U.S. justice system that should be the top story every night until they are resolved.

Try reading this story without getting angry and saddened.

http://www.ora.tv/offthegrid/article/grid-american-held-captive-years-trial-convictions

[ChuckNORRIS4Cup]

This cop is just plain stupid, and is abusing his power as an officer. First the cop falls like a fool, and turns out he dropped his pepper spray, so the kids pick it up and hand it back to the other officer there, they could of just not given it back to the police but they did the nice thing and gave it back. The officer they gave it to isn't the one who fell, but tells them thank you and is just listening to them, then anger management cop comes back and starts throwing people to the ground? Like really this guy is just a complete idiot.

[Mr. Ambien]

They had been instructed to leave many many times and did not. They were trespassing and interfering with a police officer right in the video. That isn't even a reasonable grounds argument right from the outset as there were crimes to arrest them for that the police and anyone in the video had actually seen them commit.

You purposefully left out the remainder of R v. Mann because I guess you think having taken a 1st year criminology course or Googling stuff would impress people.

It clearly spells out that police are allowed to stop you and get identification as part of an investigative detention.... in layman's terms, while they figure out what the heck is going on and who deserves to be arrested. That is clearly what is happening here, they are sitting down the people who seemed to be agitating and not co-operating until they got things in order and were able to talk to witnesses and everyone to see who were the ones who were the troublemakers.\

As for the guy resigning, there pretty much wasn't any choice regardless of whether he was guilty of anything or not. He had already been convicted in the media and in the minds of people who have not a shred of knowledge or experience on the matter and based on a bit of video.

There certainly was not time to do an investigation into what happened between the incident and now to determine if the guy was actually guilty of anything. Those types of investigations take months, not days.

What almost certainly happened was a political decision to avoid any possibility of Ferguson type riots and further problems by making a deal that he resign yet keep his pension and most probably a very healthy severance package. A deal was made to protect the city (the employer) from liability, he wasn't fired because they would face a pretty swift wrongful dismissal lawsuit and he wasn't kept emplpyed to avoid other issues. Obviously all parties agreed to the deal in order to announce it so quickly.

It is probably for the best as he would have a tough time in the future dealing with citizens in the town and it would endanger him, his partners, and the public if he kept working.

Hit the nail on the head again.

[Down by the River]

They had been instructed to leave many many times and did not. They were trespassing and interfering with a police officer right in the video. That isn't even a reasonable grounds argument right from the outset as there were crimes to arrest them for that the police and anyone in the video had actually seen them commit.

You purposefully left out the remainder of R v. Mann because I guess you think having taken a 1st year criminology course or Googling stuff would impress people.

It clearly spells out that police are allowed to stop you and get identification as part of an investigative detention.... in layman's terms, while they figure out what the heck is going on and who deserves to be arrested. That is clearly what is happening here, they are sitting down the people who seemed to be agitating and not co-operating until they got things in order and were able to talk to witnesses and everyone to see who were the ones who were the troublemakers.\

As for the guy resigning, there pretty much wasn't any choice regardless of whether he was guilty of anything or not. He had already been convicted in the media and in the minds of people who have not a shred of knowledge or experience on the matter and based on a bit of video.

There certainly was not time to do an investigation into what happened between the incident and now to determine if the guy was actually guilty of anything. Those types of investigations take months, not days.

What almost certainly happened was a political decision to avoid any possibility of Ferguson type riots and further problems by making a deal that he resign yet keep his pension and most probably a very healthy severance package. A deal was made to protect the city (the employer) from liability, he wasn't fired because they would face a pretty swift wrongful dismissal lawsuit and he wasn't kept emplpyed to avoid other issues. Obviously all parties agreed to the deal in order to announce it so quickly.

It is probably for the best as he would have a tough time in the future dealing with citizens in the town and it would endanger him, his partners, and the public if he kept working.

Your accusation that I left out that point is actually incorrect. I included it in my original post, which indicated that police absolutely can stop you, but they must be justified in doing so.

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.

An investigative detention must be made on reasonable grounds (again, before Ambien trips, I am fully aware the video is in the US and I am not trying to apply CDN laws to a different country). I did not see reasonable grounds in that video to stop that large a number of people. I've been on Granville street and seen brawls break out in the street. Police didn't just run in and start detaining anyone that was standing around.

I'm perfectly capable of having a discussion with you without trying to be insulting, but you don't seem to want to reciprocate that nicety. I am neither a first year criminology student, nor did I do a simple search of Google. I am absolutely not an expert on this topic either, and would have no problem with you changing my mind. So far you've just misrepresented my argument in order to make your own point and then insulted me.

I also want to make it clear that the police have my support, and I am not some FTP burn wall street yada yada person. Its simply that in this particular video, I question the behavior of the one officer. His colleagues seemed to question his behavior as well judging by their response to him drawing his sidearm.

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

No wonder law enforcement is considered the largest organized gang in the world ! I am amazed at the psychopaths they hire to protect us all.

these self righteous pigs think they have dominion over every human they see. It is getting ridiculously out of hand.

Guy needs serious shock therapy

[Provost]

Your accusation that I left out that point is actually incorrect. I included it in my original post, which indicated that police absolutely can stop you, but they must be justified in doing so.

An investigative detention must be made on reasonable grounds (again, before Ambien trips, I am fully aware the video is in the US and I am not trying to apply CDN laws to a different country). I did not see reasonable grounds in that video to stop that large a number of people. I've been on Granville street and seen brawls break out in the street. Police didn't just run in and start detaining anyone that was standing around.

I'm perfectly capable of having a discussion with you without trying to be insulting, but you don't seem to want to reciprocate that nicety. I am neither a first year criminology student, nor did I do a simple search of Google. I am absolutely not an expert on this topic either, and would have no problem with you changing my mind. So far you've just misrepresented my argument in order to make your own point and then insulted me.

I also want to make it clear that the police have my support, and I am not some FTP burn wall street yada yada person. Its simply that in this particular video, I question the behavior of the one officer. His colleagues seemed to question his behavior as well judging by their response to him drawing his sidearm.

Police receive calls about a group of teenagers trespassing, fighting, drinking, and doing drugs. Police attend and find a bunch of teenagers. = reasonable grounds for an investigative detention.

Your take on what justification or reasonable grounds is entirely misrepresents reality and the law. As I also said, it isn't even a matter of reasonable grounds. Every single person there who did not disperse when initially ordered to the first time could have been arrested and charged with trespassing, obstruction of a police officer, and disorderly conduct. It is clear in the videos that they had been ordered to disperse many many times and refused to do so.

Your interpretation of the other officers questioning his behaviour in the video seems pretty off the wall too and I am not sure how you have come to that conclusion. They are clearly running to aid him. They hardly even looked at him before chasing down the two men who he had pulled his weapon on, they return later on with one of them in custody.

[Jimayo]

1 - A resident from McKinney Texas, named Tatiana Rose, invited a group of friends OF ALL RACES to the pool in her SUBDIVISION. Yes, she LIVES there and as a resident has FULL ACCESS to the pool.
2 - A bunch of GROWN White women started berating the Black teenagers with RACIAL SLURS, telling them to "go back to their SECTION 8 HOUSING." Most of the children at the event live either IN OR VERY NEAR the subdivision.
3 - The White teenagers in the group STOOD UP for their Black friends, and joined them in CONFRONTING the racist GROWN WOMEN.
4 - One of the White GROWN women assaulted a 14 year old girl - SLAPPING HER IN THE FACE - and that's when things got out of control.
5 - NO TEENAGER is accused to assaulting, vandalizing, or doing ANYTHING other than being loud and upset.
6 - When the police were called, they did not ask ANY White person, including the White teenagers that ATTENDED TATIANA'S PARTY, onto the ground. Only BLACK TEENS were profiled by the police.
7 - A few Black teenagers that LIVED IN the subdivison, but were NOT AT TATIANA'S party - were ordered to the ground by the CORRPUT police.

So to be clear, the girl being arrested was the victim of assault. That racist pos cop had no cause to arrest her other than her skin colour. He should of been arresting the older white racist who attacked her. But she's a black girl in affluent white neighbourhood so he arrested her.

http://mediatakeout.com/275055/the-host-of-the-pool-party-in-mckinney-texas-speaks-out-there-were-a-lot-of-misconceptions-about-what-really-happened-and-she-clears-it-all-up.html?mobile=1

http://truthvoice.com/2015/06/texas-officer-who-pointed-guns-at-unarmed-teens-accused-of-racism-in-the-past/