This is ridiculous. Police arrests about 500 kids in Kmart parking lot on Westheimer.

I think it would have been unthinkable for police to let a 10 year old, accompanied by NO adult, go in a parking lot at midnight.

Ummm, she was having dinner with her father (presumably at Sonic, where people shouldn't have been arrested in the first place). All they had to do was ask her a question before arresting her and hauling her off to jail.

 

But Hayes, it said in the article that she got separated from her dad. So, she was not there alone.....she became alone and her father, who is named Jerome Williams BTW, was one pissed parent at the police for them taking her off.

 

Ummm, no she wasn't sitting at Sonic having dinner with her father. She was walking around by herself. She may have STARTED at Sonic, but that is not the situation the police found her in. They found her walking around BY HERSELF in the parking lot as they were arresting 400+ people. To let her go on her way would have exposed HPD and the City to MILLIONS in liability. There is NO SITUATION where police would let a 10 year old go on their way at MIDNIGHT on SATURDAY NIGHT (Major) or ANY OTHER NIGHT.

BTW: I don't think its a big deal that they took all these hooligans downtown, but obviosly the order to go into Sonic and arrest people was pretty insane. Aguirre will get toasted over this one.

 

I'm not a lawyer at all. I HAVE met people in a store parking lot before, without committing or intending to commit a crime. I was not trespassing. If I'd been arrested for trespassing, I'd raise holy hell. The fact that some kids (even many kids) had been warned before is no justification for ANY of these kids to be arrested for trespassing. None of them -- NONE OF THEM -- was issued a warning that night. And no business owner (or resident, as far as we know) called that night to complain. Maybe I would be a terrible lawyer, but let's just see if even one of the trespass charges sticks. I'll bet you a hundred dollars none of them stick. That's after thousands of tax dollars and private dollars are wasted on this.

Your third fact is correct, your second is irrelevant and your first just proves my point. If the cops want to be hardasses, they are within their rights for arresting the forty kids who violated curfew. Not the other 230 some, who committed no crime that night, or at least were not charged with the crimes they might have committed. As for your "facts," the cops were ordered to go there in order to sting a drag race. It didn't happen, so they trumped up other charges. Plain and simple, the investigation will bear this out, the cops who worked the debacle are already backing this up and the business in question says the cops acted on their own here. As for #2, the cops were not there responding to any of those complaints. Read the article, please. They were there because of drag racing. Besides which, there is no evidence that ANY of those kids were EVER warned not to congregate there. If you want to arrest people for things they did in the past, start by putting G.W. Bush in jail for his cocaine problem.

Yes, it was all those things. Bad crowd control's the least of them. And please stop insinuating they were there to control a crowd. They weren't. And even they aren't saying they were. So why are you? It is immoral, unethical AND illegal to arrest people, bind them, hold them against their will and tow away their private property, when you know for a fact they have not committed a crime. I'm not talking about the curfew violators here, who were treated unduly harshly. I'm talking about the majority of those arrested.

When exactly did I recommend crucifixion? Aguirre did a bad, bad thing and he should be punished. You're right. He didn't beat anyone. Let's not charge him for beating anyone. Let's not charge him with rape, murder or insider trading either. Let's charge him for the crimes he did commit.

Oh, Jesus. Come on, man. Everyone agrees these kids weren't a threat. Their crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You don't think bruises are a big deal? Fine. Doesn't make it okay.

And maybe I deserve to be arrested for that joint I smoked in high school. See above for arguments as to why you don't arrest someone today for something they MIGHT have done last week. It wasn't a weeknight. And unless these were your kids, it's none of your damn business how late they're out on any night. The kids who violated curfew deserved to be punished in some way. I'm not arguing that. You still seem to be implying that since "kids shouldn't be out after midnight" they deserve whatever happens to them if they are.

It did hit a personal chord. So what? I've explained time and again why this IS a big deal. My bad experience with handcuffs is that the cops often tie them way tighter than they have to for security, and tight enough to injure people. Guilty people who have not resisted arrest do not deserve this treatment. Innocent people absolutely don't. When you come around with this, "oh, boo hoo, the poor kids got teeny little bruises" crap, you look like a jerk. These kids were victims and you are mocking their ordeal and fishing anywhere you can for a reason they deserved to be mistreated. Want me to calm down about it? Stop punishing the victims.

 

Now you ARE being daft.

OK, so right off the bat (no pun intended) goes your assertion that police 'trumped up charges' and your analogy about police planting pot on you (or whatever got you arrested).

That depends on what 'trespass,' which is what they were charged with, means LEGALLY.

Again you say trumped up even as you admit at least SOME of their arrests, OVER FORTY IN FACT, were completely legitimate. Above reproach and totally within their duties.

I did. Stop saying that, please. You incorrectly assume I didn't already.

Yes. And so what? They arrive, no drag racing. Does that mean they ignore what they see if they think they need to act? No, they don't.

Well it has been written (read the article please) that there have been complaints in the past. Whether they we THOSE kids, or some other 500 kids who regularly hang out at that KMart, I don't know.

What? If they were trespassing it was that night. If they were breaking curfew it was that night. What are you talking about?

How do you distinguish between those underage and those overage? How do you go about rounding up 500+ people? Single file? Are you joking? Crowd control. 'How do we tell who to arrest? There are 500 of them.' 'Hell, I dont know, arrest them all and we'll sort it out at the station.' Crowd control.

I do not see where it has been determined that there was 'no crime committed.' Obviously there was 'crime being committed' in the parking lot. At least 40 of them for CERTAIN.

How convienent that you exclude those undeniably committing a crime from your sweeping accusations of widespread police abuse. Yes, it was an overreaction. It was a mistake. It was not illegal nor immoral nor unethical.

ANYONE taken into police custody has to be secured. Period. WHY? Because empirically police cannot tell who is and who is not dangerous, and in the past have been injured/killed by unsecured prisoners. Sorry, but saying the restraints should not be tight is ridiculous. Saying they should not be tight because they are young is INSANE.

Uh, yeah, actually it is. You see we are all affected by how other people raise their kids. It IS my business. Did you stop and think people might not go to KMart because there are FIVE HUNDRED teenagers drinking, smoking, squealing their tires, being loud and obnoxious in the parking lot? Also the existence of a CURFEW denies your silly assertion that they are 'none of my damn business' now doesn't it?

I am not implying anything. Straight up, if you make a habit of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, the wrong result will find you. I guarantee it. Most of those criticising the 'raid' and arrests said it was a waste of time, and would cause lots of paperwork. Aside from those coming out of KMart or in Sonic, the rest may very well fall within a trespass charge.

See my answer to this above.

Oh we have a society full of victims. Why DO we go on? I'm not saying a woman that got raped deserved it because she was wearing a short skirt, so PLEASE GET OFF IT. I AM MOCKING their 'ordeal' because while the Police reaction was out of line, at least with the Sonic people and those coming out of KMart with receipts, we haven't even established what the burden for a 'trespassing charge' IS, so how can you say they are VICTIMS. That is embellishment at its worst.

 

Bet me then, HayesStreet. I'm good for it.

I keep telling you to read the article, because you keep arguing yesterday's arguments. First we were to believe that this action was a response to K-Mart calling the cops, then some suggested it was about drunk driving, some said loitering. It turns out none of those presumptions were true. The police department knew what had been going on in that lot. Don't say they came looking for drag racers, but once they found "trespassers" they needed to arrest them. They knew these kids would be there. They weren't supposed to arrest them for trespass. If they were, that's what THEY'D be arguing. They're not. Only you are.

Other than that, I'd just be repeating myself. I've made my points. I stand by them as I stand by my criticism of the points you've made. I'm not interested in repeating the debate again and again. The facts are on my side and the side of the victims whose mistreatment you continue to trivialize. And I wouldn't be surprised if the curfew charges were dropped as well. Aguirre and his crew are not going to make very good witnesses.

I'm not joking about the bet. If you want it, email me through my profile.

 

No, I mean you were being daft if you thought I'd bet a hundred bucks on this.

You won't find any of those arguments in my recent posts, if at all.

Why would they possibly be dropped? Why SHOULD they be? It will be self-evident that they were arrested after midnight, after the curfew, and were in violation of the law.

Overall I agree with you that this Aguirre fellow got quite a burr up his butt. But your passion is more a result of your own experience, I think, rather than some huge outrage we should all feel over this particular incident. Aguirre will get fired and that will be what he deserves. But you are talking about 'making him account for his crimes' as if he should do some time. That is an overreaction equal to Aguirre's.

 

Hayes, my reaction has something to do with my personal experiences. Of course it does. But I didn't get worked up until people started saying it was no big deal, they probably deserved it and that a night in jail might do them good. A night in jail has never done anyone good. I think the curfew stuff might be dropped because the cops were clearly out of line. Even if they were within the law to arrest the curfew violators, it was an overly harsh reaction. And, given the bad behavior of the arresting officers, I have doubts any of the charges will stick. Regardless of your attempts to justify their actions, the police force will not be looking to do the same. They will be looking to distance themselves from the whole sorry mess. Which should tell you something.

I included you with those who'd been looking for any justification at all of the cops' actions, because you continue to try and justify them even while the cops themselves are calling the entire raid "utterly, utterly senseless." When even the cops are saying that, about their own people, knowing lawsuits are pending, you can bet that the raid was indeed senseless. That's all.

 

Totally tangential, but what about drunk drivers sleeping it off in the drunk tank?

 

I knew I'd get called on this. A drunk can sleep off his drunk anywhere, and would do so better in his own bed. That's not to make light of drunk driving, which should certainly be punished. I was responding to the people who thought a night in jail might teach these kids a lesson. Our prison system (including holding cells and drunk tanks) is in no way rehabiliative. Spend the night in a Harris County jail and tell me if it made you more reflective. I promise you the main effect it will have is to make you hate cops. The very worst ones in our system work in the jails, and they consider it their job to punish people who have not yet been convicted.

 

i want all of you to remember this statement...a guy who would probably classify himself as a liberal made this statement...just remember it because it will probably be of use in some thread in the future. i just wanted to preserve it in your minds!

 

Nice try, friend... I didn't say it shouldn't be rehabilative -- of course it SHOULD be -- I said it wasn't. Never fear, though. I contradict myself often. Keep trying. You're bound to find something...

 

actually, even the most liberal professor i ever had (my criminal law professor in law school) conceded that the push to make jails into rehabilitation centers was a waste of time...she said enough studies had been done to indicate it just wouldn't work...i don't know what to do with that information, because I know people who have come out of jail entirely different people due to prison ministry...but also due to a fear of never wanting to go back. fear can be an awfully powerful motivator.

 

This matter would've been avoided if Vin Diesel came out of the crowd and told the cops we were shooting scenes for The Fast and The Furious 2. But the sissy ran.

 

mrpaige,

I thought a criminal trespass warning had a longer effective life than just the same day/night that it was issued.

So if the police issued trespass warnings instead of arresting this past Saturday/Sunday, then the <b>same people</b> could congregate again at the K-Mart this coming weekend and be safe from citation/prosecution because the 24 hour interval on the warning had lapsed?

 

Tell ya what...if you go to KMart and I bust you in the mouth, is it ok because you can sue me? It may make you feel better 2 years down the road, but it does not make my behavior moral, ethical or legal.

When they find a lost 10 year old at the mall they don't take her downtown. They put her in the back of the car and help find her parent. That is the responsible behavior for TRAINED PROFESSIONALS.

OF COURSE IT IS!!!! Read the 4th Amendment. Jesus...I'm one of the most pro-law enforcement guys on the BBS. So when I disagree with you on this it should tell you that you're on the wrong side here.

Typically not an arrestable offense. It generally comes with a ticket and a day in court where they get chewed out by the judge in closed chambers.

I'm on your side here...but Bush has nothing to do with this. Do you go around LOOKING for any opportunity to bash the President. It doesn't serve you well here.

KMart issued implied licenses to come on their property to utilize their parking facility and to shop. They must expressly revoke said license before it is trespassing. Complaining to the police does not count. The cops can revoke the license at the insistance of KMart...but nobody is saying that these particular kids were ever told to leave. If not...then it isn't trespassing...PERIOD. Now you know...it's safe to classify them as victims of a 4th Amendment violation. No civil rights attorney worth their salt would entertain taking these section 1983 suits if they had no merit...and they know the Constitution better than you or I. And it appears that they are taking these cases.

If I want to have 500 people at my business for a rock and roll demolition derby they will not be subject to arrest for trespass. I may be arrested or ticketed for a disturbance of the peace...but not the folks I invited.

OK...so those violating curfew are ok. But that does not justify the other 200 or so. It violates their 4th Amendment rights...THAT IS ILLEGAL!!!! It violates police code of conduct, so IT IS UNETHICAL!!!! That which is unethical is immoral...so IT IS IMMORAL!!!! Strike 1, strike 2...STRIKE 3!!!!!

True...if there is a crime in plain sight. But that does not absolve them of the need for probable cause AS TO EACH DEFENDANT. There is NO WAY they could have asertained a reasonable suspicion (much less enough to rise to the level of probable cause) as to ALL THOSE PEOPLE. You are asking us to suspend the Constitution and I am unwilling to do so.

You are wrong here. Unless you can cite the Constitution, case law, the Texas Penal Code or the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure to show me I am wrong on this then you are just guessing.

 

I don't think I'd wait two years to do something to feel better, Refman. I think you'd get an immediate response ...

Actually, you are wrong. If the parking lot was fairly empty, they might put her in the back of the car and look for her parents. With 500 kids running around in a scene of pandemonium, they would not. They would be trained to take her into custody and contact her parents from the station. Westheimer is not Mayberry.

Whether its 'typical' to arrest is irrelevant. It is up to the discretion of the police to take you in or not.

Uh, refman, is it possible there are lawyers who will take ANY case against the city? No offense to your chosen profession...

The Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of the 4th Amendment. For example:

Drunk driving checkpoints allow police to detain drivers without ANY level of probable cause.

The Supreme Court has allowed profile stops which would seem to deny your interpretation of the 4th Amendment of what 'probable cause' represents.

I believe the Courts have upheld the right of police to cordone off whole blocks and arrest all those they find on the streets (particular use in crack crackdown I believe), so you are wrong that police cannot initiate wholescale arrests without individual 'probably cause.'

HPD's Aguirre overreacted. I've said that before. He will or should be fired. I've said that. He didn't drink children's blood while pissing on the Constitution and burning the flag. Will the city loose millions in lawsuits? Not a chance.

 

I really didn't want to go down this road...but here goes.

The police can detain temporarily AT THE SCENE based on "reasonable suspicion." This is a much lower standard than "probable cause." With reasoable suspicion they can stop and investigate. They MUST have the higher mental state of probable cause in order to arrest. I argue that in this case they didn't even have reasonable suspicion that a criminal trespass was going on. KMart must ask the cops to take affirmative action THAT NIGHT in order to make the case. This is my understanding of the law, and in no way constitutes legal advice as to any person on this BBS.

Understood...but I think you got my point.

Are you arguing that the cops routinely take a lost 10 year old, put her in cuffs and charge her with a crime??? That is simply not the case.

Not when they are getting paid on a contingency. If the claim was not meritorious and the compensation to the attorney is contingent upon victory, it doesn't make business sense to take the case. I promise you that the lion's share of the plaintiffs do not have the money to spend thousands on an hourly basis to an attorney. These will be contingent fee cases.

 

This MIGHT cover my first two examples, but does nothing to the THIRD, where police cordone off whole blocks and ARREST everyone. Again I agree the police were overzealous to say the least, but I am sure they have a lot of leeway within the law.

Well, I'd like to see that interp in the books. You have to warn someone to leave THAT NIGHT? I don't think that interpretation makes ANY sense. I just looked up the Texas Penal Code for Trespass and it DOES say they must be warned either verbally or with written communication. It doesn't say anything about having to warn them THAT NIGHT. I wonder if (a) previous warnings count and (b) if there are any signs or postings at KMart.

Did they charge the 10 year old? If so then I conceed the point. If they detained/put into custody, then you are incorrect. Think of the liability if they let her go.

Again no offense, Refman. But if you are saying laywers on contingency only take cases that are 'meritorious' then you are living in fantasy land.

 

Easily distinguishable. Your case was on the public streets. These kids were on private property. Without being called by the property holder, I would strongly suspect that the police do not have the rights you have assigned to them.

a) Good luck proving that all of these kids were warned without it being that night, although I believe the courts would likely require that the license to be on site must have been terminated that night.
b) I doubt a sign would cover it. Many similar signs/warnings have little to no sufficiency in the law. My thought is that the written communication must be directed specifically at the group and must be an unequivocal request to vacate.

The article insinuated that she was arrested with the rest of the group. That would entail charges being filed.

If working on a contingent fee basis, a lawyer would not take a case and invest the money to prosecute it if they knew they had little to no chance of winning. Whether to take a case is a business decision. If it were as cut and dry as you say it is that the cops did nothing impermissible, then the lawyer wouldn't take the losses that would ensue.