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

Hmmm, what if there was a parking lot in the block? What about doorways and stoops? Aren't those private property?

I can't believe that is the law. It would make no sense for KMart to have to come out and ask 500 kids to line up and then present them each one by one with a written request to leave (although I do acknowledge the 'law' doesn't make sense in many instances, so I could definitely be wrong). BTW the Penal Code does recognize written postings.

True but that was also written by a journalist, not a lawyer. 'Arrested' could easily be 'taken into custody.'

It is a fact that MOST lawsuits are settled long before the reach court. Settlements can happen for a multitude of reasons OTHER than actual guilt/infringement. For example, the City/KMart could settle rather than have continual front page headlines about the controversy. Lawyers know (especially contingency ambulance chasers) which cases are likely to be settled out of court, and take cases accordingly. They do not (all) take cases based on some concept of 'justice.'

 

Interesting thread. I avoided it because it didn't seem like much of a story or a thread. Police overreaction is something I just view as an old story. Boy was I wrong.

My comments.

1) Batman is right on as ususual.

2) If any good comes out of this it will be for the kids and their families to realize what happens when police power is used inappropriately. It might make these kids believe that the Constitution is right conerning such conservative bugaboos as search and seizure laws and "innocent till proven guilty", something Aschcroft and his supporters forget. The kids might grow up to be the type of voters who don't always complain about the system coddling criminals, that if you're arrested you must be guilty and therefore deserving of no rights and that all prisoners are living in luxurious conditons, "better than you or me".

3) Good to see some of the usual conservatives have had some personal experience that makes them question the prevailing conservative wisdom on an individual issue, whether it is differential treatment by race or the relative rights of kids to socialize vs property rights.

4) Chilling to see how far along the fascist road we are. Immediately abstract arguments for the rights of property, big business, support for "law and order", a belief that the Chronicle is a liberal house organ or anti-cop, kids are up to no good and are lying cause the cops must be right.

5) I'm impressed by the HPD of Lee Brown at least in one regard-- they didn't try to over up a ****up. Good thing that we didn't have the "good old boy, Aschroft type PD or the bust would have been worse and we would have had a coverup. We can now hopefully make some corrections to keep this type of overreaction from happening again.

 

I was out of town when this all happened, otherwise I would have tried to explain this before.

Let me start off by saying that I have been at that K-mart and Sonic before looking at cars and watching the races, and I don't, for the most part, disagree with what the cops did. People congregate in the K-mart parking lot to look at cars and set up races, some of whom are drinking. Now, across the street at the
Sonic there is a stop light, though I can't remember the street name. A lot of the races start at this light, so many people line the street there in front of the Sonic and the neighboring strip center to watch the races. When the cops come, not if but when, all the people run, get in their cars and go down the street to a different spot. Two hours later everyone's back at the K-mart. Its been a while since I've been down there, around the time The Fast and the Furious came out. How long this had been going on before that, I don't know. When I was there my friends and I knew it was illegal to be there, but we also knew that if the cops came they would just "run us off."

Now, it doesn't surprise me that some of the people had bought stuff from the K-mart or the Sonic, after a while people get hungry and thirsty. Lets look at the people who bought the scrunchi. Now, I have no doubt that they bought something from the K-mart, thats not what I'm questioning. What I want to know is, were they originally there to only buy the scrunchi, or were they there looking at cars and whatnot, had to go to the bathroom, and decided to buy a scrunchi while they were inside. My guess is the latter. They said, "We went to use the restroom at Kmart and to buy a Scrunchi..." Now if they had just gone in to buy a scrunchi, most likely they're response would have been something more like, "We had gone to K-mart to buy a scrunchi, on our way out we used the restroom..." However, the way that they prioritized it make me believe that they had been there in the parking lot looking at the cars and doing whatever else and had to go to the bathroom. They decided a scrunchi would be useful while they were inside, bought it, went back out, and found they had been busted. Most people, in my humble opinion, don't go to K-mart just to buy a scrunchi, especially after midnight.

As for the girls eating the ice cream, were they sitting in their cars or at the tables eating ice cream, or were they standing on the side of the road, watching races as they ate? I don't know which it was, but smart people have a way of bending the truth to make it fit whatever helps them most.

I can't rationalize the ten year old being arrested. How she got separated from her father I don't know, but I sure hope the police didn't physically separate her from her father. If they did, theres going to be hell to pay.

The guy who had the brother arrested while buying a video game, I'm sure he was one of the very few who was actually not in the wrong. However, I would be very surprised if many of the people who were arrested were actually innoncent.

By the way, about the whole "straight A," "Honor Society" thing, I graduated this year from Elkins in the Honor Society, and I was something like 44th out 490. c*m Laude. Almost all of my friends that I went with that night were c*m Laude or Magma c*m Laude too.

 

Did I miss this amendment about 'kids right to socialize' somewhere? What are you using as reference, the Nickelodeon Constitution?

Supporting property rights, big business, and 'law and order' does not make you a facist anymore than supporting universal health care makes you a communist (although NOT supporting property rights would make you a communist )...

I agree that if the police we in the wrong in arresting these kids for trespassing that this PR will help prevent a repeat. Personally I'd also like to see these 500 teenagers off the streets late at night (and I don't mean in the parking lot instead).

 

D*MN insightful

Rocket River

 

Written postings that say "No Entry". I doubt there is such a sign at KMart, especially since it is open 24 hours. If, for instance, the KMart closed at midnight and there was a sign that said "No Entry After Midnight" or something along those lines, then that would be a sufficient warning.

But written warning isn't required, an oral warning is sufficient, but you have to warn each individual. If the warning is given at 10pm and I show up at 10:05pm, I've not been warned and I'm not in violation of the criminal trespass law yet. Even if I had been asked to leave a week before (because I did eventually leave the week before).

Previous warnings don't seem to be sufficient (for one thing. If I ask someone to leave and they do eventually leave, then they've complied with the request even if they come back at some other time).

But there is certainly some room for interpretation. For example, what if KMart tells a kid to "never come back", is that a sufficient warning that allows arrest even weeks later? I don't know. Of course, that's probably an academic question with no relevence to this case as it doesn't appear such a request was ever made.

 

What if there is a sign that says 'Parking for customers only'? That would seem to meet your test, and allow the Police to remove non-customers as trespassers.

 

do you really think a sign like that should carry with it criminal consequences for disobedience???

 

well, i dunno. but i do know that people are more than likely to ignore it if there are no consequences. i know i believe KMart has a right to build a parking lot for their customers and not have hundreds of kids stalking their customers in the parking lot. i know i believe the police should come and run them off, and if they have to do it every week, taxpayers feel the consequences instead of the kids. Those cops SHOULD be out patrolling the streets instead of having to return to the KMart parking lot en force all the time. when they are at KMart they are not other places, meaning the taxpayers are getting less protection as a result of the kids repeatedly congregating and being run off of the lot. so should the kids feel some consequences? you bet your ass.

 

Refman to the rescue. You go, my Republican brother.

arkoe: You asked if the kids eating ice cream were watching the races. THERE WERE NO RACES THAT NIGHT.

RocketRiver: You said arkoe's post was insightful. It wasn't. It was well written and I'm sure he's a smart guy. But the fact that bad things have happened at that K-Mart in the past is no justification for arresting in the present. arkoe says it is. He's dead wrong.

HayesStreet: I'm glad to see you're coming to your senses to some degree, as a result of Refman's smart posts. But please stop saying this is about property rights or big business or law enforcement. Neither you nor HPD gets to hang this on K-Mart. They are on record as NOT having asked for that raid and not even calling HPD that night. And they are unhappy about what went down. As for being for law enforcement, if you want law enforcement to continue to get the benefit of the doubt, if you want your arguments in their favor to be taken seriously, you HAVE TO admit it when they do wrong. Searching for any justification you can find for this unjust, immoral, unethical, illegal behavior only serves to strengthen the cynicism I, and others suspicious of the cops, have. HPD understands this. Why don't you? HPD understands that if they don't admit and punish blatant wrongdoing, they will never have any credibility. Why don't you?

On this trespassing warning thing, as TOTALLY IRRELEVANT as it is for all the reasons stated above, there is zero evidence that any kid who had ever been warned was among those arrested. How long does a warning hold up? Doesn't matter. If I park in a K-Mart parking lot, whether I'm shopping there or not, and no matter how long I stay there, I expect that I will not be arrested. If a cop, or the store owner, asks me to leave and I don't -- okay. That didn't happen that night and there is zero evidence that anyone arrested was ever warned.

 

Since he has been there, and you haven't, I think he has given Insight into the situation. Insight that you are incapable of giving, I might add.

Not sure how my position has changed, but glad you're feeling better.

That was glynch, who is on your side, toughguy. Read all the posts please. I was only responding to him.

Yeah I bet they're unhappy. What bankrupt company wants more bad publicity. Try and be a LITTLE realistic Batman. They did not call for the HPD that night, but they and other businesses HAD complained in the past.

Take the blinders off, slick. Read each of my posts. I've said Aguirre was out of line in EVERYONE but the first one.

The cops will never have any credibility with you, Batman. You are just too close to this one.

Uh, yeah it is relevant. If they were warned before or if there is a suitable posting, the trespass charges can stick.

Well, if you are a teenager, and you want to go park at KMart on Westheimer and take your chances...then I revert to my 'wrong place is no excuse' position.

That is the reason a discussion of what could constitute a 'warning' is kinda relevant, don't you think? Since you don't know what constitutes a 'warning' how could you decide? Well its easy for you, you've got some all-important beef with cops.

 

The law as written says "No Entry". Whether a sign that said "Parking for Customers Only" meant someone else who was in the parking lot was criminally trespassing is open to debate, though it would probably not meet the statute, especially since it doesn't say anything about not allowing entry to people other than customers. You can't be criminally trespassing unless the owner or an agent for the owner has told you not to be there. Telling you that you can't park there is not the same as telling you that you can't be there.

Now, a sign that says "Parking for Customers Only" would allow KMart to tow cars of non-customers if they so desired.

 

What if it said 'Parking lot for customers only.'

Anyway, I think the fact the police had run these kids off before is enough under the Penal Code to CHARGE them with trespass and arrest them.

§ 30.05. Criminal Trespass

(a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on property, including an aircraft, of another without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
(D) the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property...

Now if the police had come before and warned them to vacate the Kmart parking lot, they would be guilty of trespass. It would be reasonable for the police to assume this mob had been warned since (as arkoe points out) they had been run off many times before by the police. Entry into the parking lot and NOT going into Kmart to shop would be a violation, right?

 

Probably too vague. The implication is still that parking is only for customers rather than that no one is allowed in the lot unless they have purchased something.

You'd need a sign that made it clear that it meant no one could enter unless they were a customer. Though technically no one is a customer until they buy something, so you'd technically be saying no one could enter your parking lot.

 

No. Because if the police told them to leave and they left, they aren't trespassing when they came back at a later date.

The question would only come if the individual was told he could never come back. But that's an open question that isn't answered by the direct wording of the law (though I think that would count as notice that entry was forbidden). And then any entry would be a violation. The fact that you entered the store and shopped would likely not be a defense.

Plus, any person who was not specifically warned could not have been trespassing no matter what. Just because someone else was warned doesn't mean that you can arrest me.

 

Hayes: Once again. Does this "mob" have official members? What evidence could anyone provide that any of the actual people who were arrested were ever warned?

arkoe's been there and I haven't. So he's the authority and I should defer to him. This reminds me of New Yorkers who say no one who doesn't live in New York can understand 9/11. Okay. I've been to jail and you haven't. So don't ever offer an opinion as to jail being a big deal or not. I have "insight." You don't.

My problem with arkoe's post is the same one I have with your various posts: You continue to argue the merits of doing something about this parking lot problem and ignore the fact that this case was not about that problem -- not by HPD's standards nor by K-Mart's.

I don't doubt that wrong things have happened in that lot or that it's a problem that needs to be dealt with. Arresting a bunch of people whom you have no evidence were ever warned is the wrong way to deal with it. Period. HPD and K-Mart agree with me. You're in a teeny tiny minority of people who's still trying to find a way to make it right.

The way that your position seems to have changed is that you only recently agreed that it was wrong to arrest a good number of them for trespass. You weren't saying that before Refman's posts.

And my beef is with bad cops. I know there are some good cops and I appreciate them. The main disagreement I have with pro-cop people is the percentages in each category.

The main disagreement I have with you is that I strongly believe it is absolutely, incredibly wrong to arrest innocent people and take them to jail. And you don't think it's a big deal. You think I'm blinded by my bias against cops, I think you're blinded by your bias for them. This is a case which lends credence to my bias. Your agreement in this matter would lend credence to yours. I'm not holding my breath.

 

mrpaige,

Is there some reason why my previous question was left unanswered by you?

The copy of 30.05 that I found has no mention of a 24 hour expiration of the warning/notice that entry was forbidden onto a certain property or building.

Could you provide the link that states it?

 

If I may...

I don't think anyone here is arguing that the kids should be allowed to just hang out at the KMart if KMart wants them gone...but what is being said is:

1. KMart didn't call the cops, and

2. there are other ways to deal with this problem than the "arrest first, ask questions later" approach that was employed

 

I enjoy being on your side, Max. Let's do it again sometime.

 

Normally evidence is not presented to the media several days after an arrest. Normally it is presented at the trial.

If I accept you lose. OK, I won't comment on how cool I think jails really are, and you don't comment anymore on this KMart fiasco. Besides, what I said was that he has insight you don't. You stated his post was not insightful which is insane. How can first hand experience of a situation which perpetually repeats itself NOT be insightful? And maybe you think you understand 9/11 but it is not the same understanding someone who lives or works in Manhattan has.

I don't understand why you are being so dense. They went to THIS VERY LOCATION to stop drag racing. What normally happens (as arkoe describes) is the kids gather in the KMart parking lot and at the Sonic and watch the races. The police showed up on this particular night and they were NOT drag racing. Now in your version the police go bezerker and arrest everyone for no reason. It is much more likely that they got their and said '****, we come out here all the damn time on complaints about these kids. Now they don't seem to be racing tonight but we HAVE warned them several times not to congregate at the KMart. So arrest them for trespassing.' The articles detail how the dissenting police opinions were that it was 'senseless' because it would give them mounds of paperwork to do (police love paperwork), it would be a total pain in the butt to arrest them all. and they would all be out the next day tops. They didn't said Aguirre was doing anything illegal or immoral. Just stupid.

HPD and KMart are covering their asses. Notice KMart didn't say they had NEVER called, just that they hadn't that night.

I have posted no less than four times that Aguirre would and should get fired. So I'm not sure what you're talking about. It is not unreasonable for the cops to have arrested these kids if they can make the trespassing charge stick. If not then they will be totally screwed. If so then what is the problem? The people eating at Sonic? I have always said that was crazy, going as far IN MY FIRST POST to doubt it even happened.