Jump to content

Melee at Lumberton Waffle House


BMTSoulja1

Recommended Posts

According to the article, they were arrested later for public intoxication after they were identified.

Just pondering the law… how do you justify arresting someone for public intoxication later when you cannot prove how intoxicated they (if at all) were during the fight?

They might just plead guilty but I would take the case to court and say prove I was publicly intoxicated. I can almost guarantee it even if convicted and City Court, the county DA will drop the case as not winnable. 

Why not just arrest them for fighting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Touché…I stand corrected. 🙂

I used to get that while on night patrol back in the mid 80s and the again when I commanded the gang unit in the early 2000s. 

Double hashbrowns with grilled jalapeños and onions, and covered with country gravy. At our half-price it was about $1.10.

I had been on the swat team for about 10 years up until the early 2000s. I was around 180 pounds and would practice by jogging 3 times a week as much as 5 miles a night. After I join the gang unit I gained about 20 pounds in about five months.… literally.  😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, tvc184 said:

According to the article, they were arrested later for public intoxication after they were identified.

Just pondering the law… how do you justify arresting someone for public intoxication later when you cannot prove how intoxicated they (if at all) were during the fight?

They might just plead guilty but I would take the case to court and say prove I was publicly intoxicated. I can almost guarantee it even if convicted and City Court, the county DA will drop the case as not winnable. 

Why not just arrest them for fighting?

Luckily it happened in Hardin County instead of Jefferson County.  Jefferson County Jail wont take Class C arrest at the moment due to COVID and overcrowding.  Been that way for at least a month or so with no end in sight.  Cut a report for disorderly conduct and cut them loose.  Issue warrants and arrest at a later time when the jail decides to lift the restrictions 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

Ok. Try this one on for size. Double hashbrowns with onions, jalapeños, cheese & covered with chili and topped of with 2 eggs over medium. Sounds disgusting, but at 2:15 am it’s delicious. Add a side of pork chops of course. Extra seasoning on the chops. 

Nothing good would be happening about 7:00 after that meal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BOBKAT'88 said:

Luckily it happened in Hardin County instead of Jefferson County.  Jefferson County Jail wont take Class C arrest at the moment due to COVID and overcrowding.  Been that way for at least a month or so with no end in sight.  Cut a report for disorderly conduct and cut them loose.  Issue warrants and arrest at a later time when the jail decides to lift the restrictions 

I agree with DOC but PI? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BOBKAT'88 said:

Luckily it happened in Hardin County instead of Jefferson County.  Jefferson County Jail wont take Class C arrest at the moment due to COVID and overcrowding.  Been that way for at least a month or so with no end in sight.  Cut a report for disorderly conduct and cut them loose.  Issue warrants and arrest at a later time when the jail decides to lift the restrictions 

I thought the legislature effectively ended arrests for Class C’s in their session this year?   Could be wrong but I thought that’s what I heard in a recent legislative update. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

I thought the legislature effectively ended arrests for Class C’s in their session this year?   Could be wrong but I thought that’s what I heard in a recent legislative update. 

Like seriously ended C arrests?

Such a bill (along with other standards) are proposed every session, usually by the same person(s). I have followed each session for the last 20 years or so and I see the same thing coming up again and again. Usually it is to restrict police authority.

Typically these bills are submitted to a committee and never go any farther including not even getting a hearing. I think when some politicians run for office they do so by making statements such as, I will submit a bill that blah blah blah…. and they do.

But I have seen bills come up that would prohibit C arrest as long as the person signs the citation. None have seen the light of day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Like seriously ended C arrests?

Such a bill (along with other standards) are proposed every session, usually by the same person(s). I have followed each session for the last 20 years or so and I see the same thing coming up again and again. Usually it is to restrict police authority.

Typically these bills are submitted to a committee and never go any farther including not even getting a hearing. I think when some politicians run for office they do so by making statements such as, I will submit a bill that blah blah blah…. and they do.

But I have seen bills come up that would prohibit C arrest as long as the person signs the citation. None have seen the light of day. 

I was almost certain that’s what was said at a luncheon last week.  It was off a legislative update packet the tdcaa does.   Could have misheard though.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Like seriously ended C arrests?

Such a bill (along with other standards) are proposed every session, usually by the same person(s). I have followed each session for the last 20 years or so and I see the same thing coming up again and again. Usually it is to restrict police authority.

Typically these bills are submitted to a committee and never go any farther including not even getting a hearing. I think when some politicians run for office they do so by making statements such as, I will submit a bill that blah blah blah…. and they do.

But I have seen bills come up that would prohibit C arrest as long as the person signs the citation. None have seen the light of day. 

This is the hidden content, please

 

HB 830.  Was one of the George Floyd Reform Act prongs that passed in Texas (like 3 out of 7 I think passed in Texas). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

I was almost certain that’s what was said at a luncheon last week.  It was off a legislative update packet the tdcaa does.   Could have misheard though.  

Last big push that I remember was from the 2019 legislative session. I believe there was an amendment to add to the Sandra bland act to limit C arrests. That actually made it to a floor vote but was soundly defeated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

As of now the Texas police can arrest for anything except speeding, open alcohol container in a vehicle and texting, if the person agrees to sign the citation.

On a sidenote, when I teach at the Police Academy I used those three offenses as an example of lex specialis derogat legi generali. 

I think in Latin it basically means the specific over the general.

It is an important lesson for police officers because in the Code of Criminal Procedure in 14.01(b) it says that a police officer can arrest for any offense in his presence or view. It appears from that section that if the police think they see a crime, they can arrest.

But, hold on a minute. In the Transportation Code it lists those 3 crimes as not being able to arrest. This clearly is in conflict with CCP 14.01(b). That is where lex specialis comes in.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined


  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...