Houston case - Officer wrong?

[V-Tach]

Secure your %$#@! firearm..........

Lot's of stupidity on both sides....

jmho.....

 

[Younggun]

Maybe so, but nothing the guy did was illegal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[V-Tach]

If being stupid was illegal............

Doesn't justify the cops behavior.......but could have been easily avoided.....

jmho...

 

[OIF2]

The video is pretty clear on this one. Not to mention the off duty cop already violating regs buying alcohol in uniform.

Not commenting on what did or didn't happen, just the pile-on that always occurs when stuff like this is released. I usually reserve judgement until the investigation is over. I'll do the same about this. If the cop lied he'll pay dearly, as he should. Plenty of time for that later when all the facts are known. Too easy.
Bob

 

[winchster]

Not commenting on what did or didn't happen, just the pile-on that always occurs when stuff like this is released. I usually reserve judgement until the investigation is over. I'll do the same about this. If the cop lied he'll pay dearly, as he should. Plenty of time for that later when all the facts are known. Too easy.
Bob

The counter to your argument, in this case, is all the facts are known. All of them, from beginning to end. There was no interaction prior to what you see in the video.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

Not commenting on what did or didn't happen, just the pile-on that always occurs when stuff like this is released. I usually reserve judgement until the investigation is over. I'll do the same about this. If the cop lied he'll pay dearly, as he should. Plenty of time for that later when all the facts are known. Too easy.
Bob

What is left to discover?

Your comment comparing this to the "pile on that always happens" is somewhat dishonest. This isn't a case where anyone is filling in the blanks or assuming the cop must have lied. Everything has been released. We can see exactly what happened, we know the cops story, and we know the charge.

What new facts are you waiting for?

 

[TheRedGoat]

I am not perplexed and conflicted, the officer lied, and made a false arrest and probably a false report. He should be fired and jailed. Without video, this guy would be going to jail and forever be a felon.

This.

TRG

 

[Mreed911]

Not commenting on what did or didn't happen, just the pile-on that always occurs when stuff like this is released. I usually reserve judgement until the investigation is over. I'll do the same about this. If the cop lied he'll pay dearly, as he should. Plenty of time for that later when all the facts are known. Too easy.
Bob

Not being antagonistic - have you watched the video?

 

[easy rider]

How often do you scrutinize other people in a vehicle that clearly isn't a patrol car/ truck? I didn't really know that was an LEO in the pickup for that split second before it showed the other pickup pulling up behind him, so I would have a hard time believing he was being attacked for being an LEO, which IMO was never there. I didn't see any traffic charges, so how fast he was going or how close his vehicle came is irrelevant. As it was pointed out, stupidity in the handling of gun isn't necessarily breaking the law. Clearly the LEO was startled at the sight of the handgun and then began his fish tale. I'm sure if he was charged, which I doubt, lawyers would have a heyday in lawsuits.

 

[Mreed911]

I'm sure if he was charged, which I doubt

Didn't watch the linked news video or read the article, did you?

Carmona is charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after an off-duty HPD officer accused Carmona of pointing a gun at him twice.

 

[easy rider]

Didn't watch the linked news video or read the article, did you?

Meaning charged in a court of law

 

[Mreed911]

Meaning charged in a court of law

I don't know how much clearer "charged" can be. He has been charged with a felony in District Court in Harris County. Where else would he be charged?

 

[bones_708]

The counter to your argument, in this case, is all the facts are known. All of them, from beginning to end. There was no interaction prior to what you see in the video.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

That one video isn't "All the facts". Then there is also that we got the "facts" second hand from the media.

 

[Dawico]

That one video isn't "All the facts". Then there is also that we got the "facts" second hand from the media.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[easy rider]

I don't know how much clearer "charged" can be. He has been charged with a felony in District Court in Harris County. Where else would he be charged?

Since he is on a bond, charges have been filed and the case is ongoing. I will grant that he has been charged, but until he is found guilty and a sentence is given those charges can be reversed.

 

[Mreed911]

Since he is on a bond, charges have been filed and the case is ongoing. I will grant that he has been charged, but until he is found guilty and a sentence is given those charges can be reversed.

No, they can't. They can be dropped and the arrest expunged and/or sealed, but they can't be "reversed." There's zero chance in a criminal judicial setting of them reversing his attorney fees, his time lost, his reputation lost, etc.

That all happens civilly, outside the criminal process... and after. If at all.

There's no such thing as "reversed." None of the above happens automatically, either.

 

[OIF2]

What is left to discover?

Your comment comparing this to the "pile on that always happens" is somewhat dishonest. This isn't a case where anyone is filling in the blanks or assuming the cop must have lied. Everything has been released. We can see exactly what happened, we know the cops story, and we know the charge.

What new facts are you waiting for?

"Somewhat dishonest?" Because I'll wait for the results of the actual investigation, instead of the verdict of the peanut gallery? But of course, "all the facts are known". No reason to look into it; fire the guy and put him in jail. According to you, "everything has been released". Glad you know that; looks like you're privy to info the rest of us aren't.

I'm not waiting on new facts; I didn't say that. I DID say I'll wait until the investigation is over. If the cop was wrong, he goes down. Last I heard, everyone, even a cop, is entitled to due process, to present his side of the story...you know, confront witnesses, have representation, all that silly fairness and justice stuff. Not for a cop though, at least here. After all, "what's left to discover?" I've found, in my limited experience in the cases I looked at that's there's ALMOST always something else to consider. At least, that's what a good investigation will turn up. If he lied, manufactured a story and had a false arrest, that'll show up clearly, too.
Bob

 

[Younggun]

That one video isn't "All the facts". Then there is also that we got the "facts" second hand from the media.

What's missing?

We have the officers claim.

We have a very high quality video of the incident, a video that actually starts BEFORE the incident (unlike many cases where it starts midway), and the video shows the full incident in question.

The cop says the guy pointed a gun at him, twice. The video shows a clumsy guy with an unsecured weapon drop it getting out of the truck, pick it up, turn his back to the cap and put it in his truck, then a cop jumping out of his truck and pulling a gun on the guy.

If the media faked that video they are getting really good. So did the cop not arrest him or was he arrested for something different than he was charged? That doesn't make much sense.

So, what is everyone missing? What has the media been biased about?

 

[Younggun]

"Somewhat dishonest?" Because I'll wait for the results of the actual investigation, instead of the verdict of the peanut gallery? But of course, "all the facts are known". No reason to look into it; fire the guy and put him in jail. According to you, "everything has been released". Glad you know that; looks like you're privy to info the rest of us aren't.

I'm not waiting on new facts; I didn't say that. I DID say I'll wait until the investigation is over. If the cop was wrong, he goes down. Last I heard, everyone, even a cop, is entitled to due process, to present his side of the story...you know, confront witnesses, have representation, all that silly fairness and justice stuff. Not for a cop though, at least here. After all, "what's left to discover?"
Bob

I never said he couldn't have a trial, or that he didn't deserve one. But I do believe more than enough information has been released for me to make an informed decision as to how I feel about this particular situation.

And seeing as I'm not on the jury, nor do I have any authority to assign a punishment for his actions, I have the luxury of not waiting for the painfully slow gears of our justice system to turn.


Nor do I believe a department or local government will always be honest when their own employees are on the line. That is why it's important that we DO look at these situations ourselves and form opinions.

You seem to be grouping those in this thread as cop bashers, but you should look at the post history of many here who believe the cop is in the wrong and you will see that most do not fall in to the "cop basher" category and many have been accused of "licking boots" or some other silliness in previous threads.

 

[OIF2]

Not being antagonistic - have you watched the video?

Yeah, I have. Several times. Doesn't look good; probably not what the cop says what happened. In my previous employment I've watched literally thousands of videos of crimes that have occurred; it's part of the story, but just a part. A good investigator looks for the entire story. Maybe the video IS the entire story, but I'll wait for an internal probe to confirm it.
Bob