Texas Police Attack Children At Pool Party

[Unkotare]

Here's a more complete video of the incident.

Texas Police Officer On Administrative Leave After Pulling Weapon On Teens During Pool Party - BuzzFeed News

It shows 2 guys, and several girls, running up to the cop while he was cuffing he girl on the ground.

Not a wise decision.

If you were a cop, how would you react if you were possibly being attacked from several directions?

Revealing page.

... one officer aggressively handcuffing and detaining teens who described themselves as bystanders, before wrestling a girl in a bathing suit to the ground and drawing his weapon on others who came to her aid. After ordering a girl to leave the area, the officer can be seen throwing her to the ground and pushing her head down. He is then seen pulling a weapon from his holster to scare off two males who had come to the girl’s aid. The officer is also shown sitting atop the girl to subdue her.

Brooks, the 15-year-old who shot the YouTube video, told BuzzFeed News many students had arrived at the end-of-school celebration at the pool on guest passes. Some had also jumped over the fence.

“I think a bunch of white parents were angry that a bunch of black kids who don’t live in the neighborhood were in the pool,” said Brooks, who is white.

Stone told BuzzFeed News that when she approached the officers to explain what had happened in the pool the cop featured in the video ordered that she be handcuffed. “I asked why I was in handcuffs and he wouldn’t tell me,” she said, adding that she was the only white person handcuffed.

Stone’s father, Donnie, soon arrived on scene and was also not given a reason as to why his 14-year-old daughter was in handcuffs. “All they would say is that she’s not arrested,” he said. “I was fixing to get really irate. I thought they were going to put me in handcuffs. I was shaking. It was very aggravating.”


Then from the PD statement:
McKinney Police later learned of a video that was taken at the scene by an unknown party. This video has raised concerns that are being investigated by the McKinney Police Department. At this time, one of the responding officers has been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of this investigation.

In other words, they got caught by video and are now forced to at least mouth the words "uh, we are doing an um, investigation and shit". Without a citizen shooting video -- who got handcuffed for it -- they would have got away with it.

But let's all click our heels together three times and chant that USMB Doublethink mantra:

"Don't believe your lying eyes -- it's really Barack O'bama who's dividing this country... "

" The officer is also shown sitting atop the girl to subdue her."
He put a knee in her back, which you would have noticed had you watched the video.

standard practice to keep someone immobile.


Also, if you had watched the video, several of the teens came running up while the cop was attempting to subdue the girl, and from different directions.
As I stated before, not a wise thing to do in that situation.


Also, tho several were detained on site, only one was arrested.

"“One arrest was made of an adult male for interference with the duties of a police officer and evading arrest,” he said."

But please continue to post what the person that wrote the article claims, and ignore what is in front of your eyes.

What's "not a wise thing to do" is to whip a 16-year-old girl into the ground by her hair, to draw your weapon and unleash a torrent of profanity on kids who apparently did nothing but exist, and start ordering people around as far as where they can stand and handcuffing a 14-year-old girl because she shot a video that could get you busted for all of the above.

The number of violations Casebolt commits here probably can't even be counted. That's why he got suspended. Yet there you are, cheering him on like a good drone.

You authoritarian sycophants make me want to puke my guts out. How 'bout you grow a pair, Twinkle Toes.

I watched the video several times and was very encouraged to see something not often shown on a video. Most of the black teenagers obeyed the lawful orders of the cops and got on the ground.

I did see that mouth of the black girl going mile a minute but without the audio, I don't know what she was saying to the officer. It didn't look like she was saying 'have a nice day.' And, he took her down by a wrist lock, not her hair.

He did resign and knows he was out of control, but no one was injured and that is a good thing.

Doesn't matter what she was saying -- she can say whatever the fuck she wants. As can we all, until the jackboots grab us all by the hair and knee us in the back to shut us up.

.

You've mentioned this twice now. Keep your deviant fantasies to yourself.

 

[thanatos144]

Revealing page.

... one officer aggressively handcuffing and detaining teens who described themselves as bystanders, before wrestling a girl in a bathing suit to the ground and drawing his weapon on others who came to her aid. After ordering a girl to leave the area, the officer can be seen throwing her to the ground and pushing her head down. He is then seen pulling a weapon from his holster to scare off two males who had come to the girl’s aid. The officer is also shown sitting atop the girl to subdue her.

Brooks, the 15-year-old who shot the YouTube video, told BuzzFeed News many students had arrived at the end-of-school celebration at the pool on guest passes. Some had also jumped over the fence.

“I think a bunch of white parents were angry that a bunch of black kids who don’t live in the neighborhood were in the pool,” said Brooks, who is white.

Stone told BuzzFeed News that when she approached the officers to explain what had happened in the pool the cop featured in the video ordered that she be handcuffed. “I asked why I was in handcuffs and he wouldn’t tell me,” she said, adding that she was the only white person handcuffed.

Stone’s father, Donnie, soon arrived on scene and was also not given a reason as to why his 14-year-old daughter was in handcuffs. “All they would say is that she’s not arrested,” he said. “I was fixing to get really irate. I thought they were going to put me in handcuffs. I was shaking. It was very aggravating.”


Then from the PD statement:
McKinney Police later learned of a video that was taken at the scene by an unknown party. This video has raised concerns that are being investigated by the McKinney Police Department. At this time, one of the responding officers has been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of this investigation.

In other words, they got caught by video and are now forced to at least mouth the words "uh, we are doing an um, investigation and shit". Without a citizen shooting video -- who got handcuffed for it -- they would have got away with it.

But let's all click our heels together three times and chant that USMB Doublethink mantra:

"Don't believe your lying eyes -- it's really Barack O'bama who's dividing this country... "

" The officer is also shown sitting atop the girl to subdue her."
He put a knee in her back, which you would have noticed had you watched the video.

standard practice to keep someone immobile.


Also, if you had watched the video, several of the teens came running up while the cop was attempting to subdue the girl, and from different directions.
As I stated before, not a wise thing to do in that situation.


Also, tho several were detained on site, only one was arrested.

"“One arrest was made of an adult male for interference with the duties of a police officer and evading arrest,” he said."

But please continue to post what the person that wrote the article claims, and ignore what is in front of your eyes.

What's "not a wise thing to do" is to whip a 16-year-old girl into the ground by her hair, to draw your weapon and unleash a torrent of profanity on kids who apparently did nothing but exist, and start ordering people around as far as where they can stand and handcuffing a 14-year-old girl because she shot a video that could get you busted for all of the above.

The number of violations Casebolt commits here probably can't even be counted. That's why he got suspended. Yet there you are, cheering him on like a good drone.

You authoritarian sycophants make me want to puke my guts out. How 'bout you grow a pair, Twinkle Toes.

I watched the video several times and was very encouraged to see something not often shown on a video. Most of the black teenagers obeyed the lawful orders of the cops and got on the ground.

I did see that mouth of the black girl going mile a minute but without the audio, I don't know what she was saying to the officer. It didn't look like she was saying 'have a nice day.' And, he took her down by a wrist lock, not her hair.

He did resign and knows he was out of control, but no one was injured and that is a good thing.

Doesn't matter what she was saying -- she can say whatever the fuck she wants. As can we all, until the jackboots grab us all by the hair and knee us in the back to shut us up.

.

You've mentioned this twice now. Keep your deviant fantasies to yourself.

they cant seem to stop from repeating the same lies over and over.....

 

[MarcATL]

The level of abject denialism is insane in here....

He should "fire his lawyer" for passing on his own message...
He "did nothing wrong" even though he's in a completely different mental state from the other 11 cops...
He "did nothing wrong" even though his own Chief characterizes his actions as "out of control" and "indefensible"...
He "did nothing wrong" even after acknowledging and apologizing (and resigning) for it...
The assaulted girl was "resisting" by virtue of having what little body weight she has, thereby making poor Casebolt's job harder to toss around like a rag doll...
"Mouthing off" amounts to some sort of uppity "crime"

And of course, the winner and still champeen:
"The O'bama and The Sharpton orchestrated the whole thing from the White House and "pressured" the resignation".

--- whatever it takes, no matter how silly, to deny responsibility and face the stark reality of what's right there on video.
Because facing realities is.. is just... so hard.

Boggles the fucking mind.

Very Well Said Brother Pogo

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Vandalshandle]

This is a true story.

One of the deputies in our county is about as small and lightweight as one can be, and still pass the physical requirements to be a deputy. He used to be a deputy in Alaska, and was called out on a DUI backup when some 325 pound logging trucker had been stopped for reckless driving. Chris approached the trucker, who refused to get out of his cab, and told him that he was under arrest, for something or other, having to do with him being obviously drunk, but refusing to take the sobriety test. The trucker laughed at him, and told him, "Well, I just don't much care to be arrested today, so what the hell are you going to do about it?". Chris went back to his car, and took off his gun and his utility belt, and returned to the cab, and said, 'Well, I don't much care for having to spend the rest of the day filling out paperwork after having shot you, so I guess I will just have to beat your ass unarmed". The trucker thought about that for a moment, studied this 140 lb runt, and burst out laughing. He climbed out of the truck, and said, "You win, officer! I'm afraid you might hit me with your balls!"

 

[OKTexas]

The parameters do apply, you just refuse to admit it. Try reading it again, mouthing off to the cops trying to incite her friends is well within the parameters, in fact it's the first part of the definition under the law.

Why do you insist on bringing race into it, I haven't, but you just can't seem to help yourself. If you're trying to call me a racist feel free, you ignorant leftist have been so fast and loose with it, it means nothing. Chicken little comes to mind.

Chicken Little was racist?

At this point nothing in the River DeNial surprises me any more. After "little bitches", why would it.

Post that D.C. definition again. If you dare.

I posted the first section of the law and a link to the whole statute, feel free to go find it. You're not worth the effort.

Go fuck yourself. It's because you're a liar and you know I'll prove it.

Poor baby, are you up past your bed time again. Google is your friend if you're too lazy go back and look up my post. Just enter TX disorderly conduct. Can you follow these very simple instructions?

See -- you should have taken my offer to repeat your own selectively edited version. Because now I'm going to post the whole thing, and it just digs you deeper.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(Casebolt 1, Becton/Bakari 0)​

(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(Casebolt 1, Becton/Bakari 0) .... now 2-0​

(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;

(does not apply)​

(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;

(Casebolt 1, Becton/Bakari 0) ... now 3-0 Casebolt pitching a shutout.​

(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;

(does not apply)​

(6) fights with another in a public place;

(we could cite Casebolt here -- he's the only one fighting -- but it would be redundant with assault so we'll overlook this one... still 3-0)​

(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;

(does not apply)​

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

Ding Ding Ding. Casebolt hits this one out of the park. Becton/Bakari: no score.
Casebolt 4, Citizens 0.​

(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;

(does not apply)​

(10) exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act; or

(does not apply. But hilarious.)​

(11) for a lewd or unlawful purpose:

(A) enters on the property of another and looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in the dwelling;

(B) while on the premises of a hotel or comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's own through a window or other opening in the room; or

(C) while on the premises of a public place, looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using the area.

(does not apply)
​

(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4) that the actor had significant provocation for his abusive or threatening conduct.

(does not apply)​

(c) For purposes of this section:

(1) an act is deemed to occur in a public place or near a private residence if it produces its offensive or proscribed consequences in the public place or near a private residence; and

(2) a noise is presumed to be unreasonable if the noise exceeds a decibel level of 85 after the person making the noise receives notice from a magistrate or peace officer that the noise is a public nuisance.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor unless committed under Subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8), in which event it is a Class B misdemeanor.

(e) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under Subsection (a)(7) or (9) that the person who discharged the firearm had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the person or to another by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code.

(does not apply)
​

I've got four counts on Casebolt and zero on Citizen children.

Oh I'm sorry -- when I say "citizen children" I refer to what you call "little bitches". Which term tells us a lot.

Yep, opinions are like armpits, everyone has one and most all of them stink. You don't like mine, I don't like yours, I'd call that a draw.

BTW, the only thing racist is this whole episode is the coverage, had that been a white girl do you really think it would have made the national news? I don't.

 

[Pogo]

Chicken Little was racist?

At this point nothing in the River DeNial surprises me any more. After "little bitches", why would it.

Post that D.C. definition again. If you dare.

I posted the first section of the law and a link to the whole statute, feel free to go find it. You're not worth the effort.

Go fuck yourself. It's because you're a liar and you know I'll prove it.

Poor baby, are you up past your bed time again. Google is your friend if you're too lazy go back and look up my post. Just enter TX disorderly conduct. Can you follow these very simple instructions?

See -- you should have taken my offer to repeat your own selectively edited version. Because now I'm going to post the whole thing, and it just digs you deeper.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(Casebolt 1, Becton/Bakari 0)​

(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(Casebolt 1, Becton/Bakari 0) .... now 2-0​

(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;

(does not apply)​

(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;

(Casebolt 1, Becton/Bakari 0) ... now 3-0 Casebolt pitching a shutout.​

(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;

(does not apply)​

(6) fights with another in a public place;

(we could cite Casebolt here -- he's the only one fighting -- but it would be redundant with assault so we'll overlook this one... still 3-0)​

(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;

(does not apply)​

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

Ding Ding Ding. Casebolt hits this one out of the park. Becton/Bakari: no score.
Casebolt 4, Citizens 0.​

(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;

(does not apply)​

(10) exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act; or

(does not apply. But hilarious.)​

(11) for a lewd or unlawful purpose:

(A) enters on the property of another and looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in the dwelling;

(B) while on the premises of a hotel or comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's own through a window or other opening in the room; or

(C) while on the premises of a public place, looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using the area.

(does not apply)
​

(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4) that the actor had significant provocation for his abusive or threatening conduct.

(does not apply)​

(c) For purposes of this section:

(1) an act is deemed to occur in a public place or near a private residence if it produces its offensive or proscribed consequences in the public place or near a private residence; and

(2) a noise is presumed to be unreasonable if the noise exceeds a decibel level of 85 after the person making the noise receives notice from a magistrate or peace officer that the noise is a public nuisance.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor unless committed under Subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8), in which event it is a Class B misdemeanor.

(e) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under Subsection (a)(7) or (9) that the person who discharged the firearm had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the person or to another by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code.

(does not apply)
​

I've got four counts on Casebolt and zero on Citizen children.

Oh I'm sorry -- when I say "citizen children" I refer to what you call "little bitches". Which term tells us a lot.

Yep, opinions are like armpits, everyone has one and most all of them stink. You don't like mine, I don't like yours, I'd call that a draw.
BTW, the only thing racist is this whole episode is the coverage, had that been a white girl do you really think it would have made the national news? I don't.

Where did I say it was "racist"?

 

[OKTexas]

I posted the first section of the law and a link to the whole statute, feel free to go find it. You're not worth the effort.

Go fuck yourself. It's because you're a liar and you know I'll prove it.

Poor baby, are you up past your bed time again. Google is your friend if you're too lazy go back and look up my post. Just enter TX disorderly conduct. Can you follow these very simple instructions?

See -- you should have taken my offer to repeat your own selectively edited version. Because now I'm going to post the whole thing, and it just digs you deeper.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(Casebolt 1, Becton/Bakari 0)​

(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(Casebolt 1, Becton/Bakari 0) .... now 2-0​

(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;

(does not apply)​

(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;

(Casebolt 1, Becton/Bakari 0) ... now 3-0 Casebolt pitching a shutout.​

(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;

(does not apply)​

(6) fights with another in a public place;

(we could cite Casebolt here -- he's the only one fighting -- but it would be redundant with assault so we'll overlook this one... still 3-0)​

(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;

(does not apply)​

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

Ding Ding Ding. Casebolt hits this one out of the park. Becton/Bakari: no score.
Casebolt 4, Citizens 0.​

(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;

(does not apply)​

(10) exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act; or

(does not apply. But hilarious.)​

(11) for a lewd or unlawful purpose:

(A) enters on the property of another and looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in the dwelling;

(B) while on the premises of a hotel or comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's own through a window or other opening in the room; or

(C) while on the premises of a public place, looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using the area.

(does not apply)
​

(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4) that the actor had significant provocation for his abusive or threatening conduct.

(does not apply)​

(c) For purposes of this section:

(1) an act is deemed to occur in a public place or near a private residence if it produces its offensive or proscribed consequences in the public place or near a private residence; and

(2) a noise is presumed to be unreasonable if the noise exceeds a decibel level of 85 after the person making the noise receives notice from a magistrate or peace officer that the noise is a public nuisance.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor unless committed under Subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8), in which event it is a Class B misdemeanor.

(e) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under Subsection (a)(7) or (9) that the person who discharged the firearm had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the person or to another by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code.

(does not apply)
​

I've got four counts on Casebolt and zero on Citizen children.

Oh I'm sorry -- when I say "citizen children" I refer to what you call "little bitches". Which term tells us a lot.

Yep, opinions are like armpits, everyone has one and most all of them stink. You don't like mine, I don't like yours, I'd call that a draw.

Umm... and you are...?

That wasn't your post I was responding to. In fact I don't even remember seeing you in here before.
Are you lost?

Or are you OKTexas' sock and you forgot which account you were using?

BTW, the only thing racist is this whole episode is the coverage, had that been a white girl do you really think it would have made the national news? I don't.

Where did I say it was "racist"?

Aren't you supposed to be finding my "support" of the ACA somewhere? Or was that an all-day fool's errand because you put your foot in your mouth with yet another assumption you didn't bother thinking through?

Still waiting.

Don't play the innocent, you've been implying that different people are racist all through this thread.

Also I was actually impressed, you were able to simple instructions after you got your nap.

 

[Pogo]

Go fuck yourself. It's because you're a liar and you know I'll prove it.

Poor baby, are you up past your bed time again. Google is your friend if you're too lazy go back and look up my post. Just enter TX disorderly conduct. Can you follow these very simple instructions?

See -- you should have taken my offer to repeat your own selectively edited version. Because now I'm going to post the whole thing, and it just digs you deeper.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(Casebolt 1, Becton/Bakari 0)​

(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(Casebolt 1, Becton/Bakari 0) .... now 2-0​

(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;

(does not apply)​

(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;

(Casebolt 1, Becton/Bakari 0) ... now 3-0 Casebolt pitching a shutout.​

(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;

(does not apply)​

(6) fights with another in a public place;

(we could cite Casebolt here -- he's the only one fighting -- but it would be redundant with assault so we'll overlook this one... still 3-0)​

(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;

(does not apply)​

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

Ding Ding Ding. Casebolt hits this one out of the park. Becton/Bakari: no score.
Casebolt 4, Citizens 0.​

(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;

(does not apply)​

(10) exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act; or

(does not apply. But hilarious.)​

(11) for a lewd or unlawful purpose:

(A) enters on the property of another and looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in the dwelling;

(B) while on the premises of a hotel or comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's own through a window or other opening in the room; or

(C) while on the premises of a public place, looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using the area.

(does not apply)
​

(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4) that the actor had significant provocation for his abusive or threatening conduct.

(does not apply)​

(c) For purposes of this section:

(1) an act is deemed to occur in a public place or near a private residence if it produces its offensive or proscribed consequences in the public place or near a private residence; and

(2) a noise is presumed to be unreasonable if the noise exceeds a decibel level of 85 after the person making the noise receives notice from a magistrate or peace officer that the noise is a public nuisance.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor unless committed under Subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8), in which event it is a Class B misdemeanor.

(e) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under Subsection (a)(7) or (9) that the person who discharged the firearm had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the person or to another by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code.

(does not apply)
​

I've got four counts on Casebolt and zero on Citizen children.

Oh I'm sorry -- when I say "citizen children" I refer to what you call "little bitches". Which term tells us a lot.

Yep, opinions are like armpits, everyone has one and most all of them stink. You don't like mine, I don't like yours, I'd call that a draw.

BTW, the only thing racist is this whole episode is the coverage, had that been a white girl do you really think it would have made the national news? I don't.

Where did I say it was "racist"?

Don't play the innocent, you've been implying that different people are racist all through this thread.

Also I was actually impressed, you were able to simple instructions after you got your nap.

I implied YOU were/are racist, sure. For obvious reasons including, but not limited to, the DC law above.

I didn't say the story is "racist".
See the word "it"? That's neuter gender.

Had the girl been white, would it have been national news? I would hope so, sure. Police paramilitary excess stories are plentiful but this particular one was blatant, leaving absolutely no wiggle room. Casebolt knew he fucked up; his Chief knew he fucked up; EVERYBODY knows he fucked up. Everybody not in denial that is.

Turning the question around, rhetorically because I cannot expect an honest answer after your history here --- had the assaulted teenage girl been white, would your attitude have been different? I suspect it would.

 

[OKTexas]

Poor baby, are you up past your bed time again. Google is your friend if you're too lazy go back and look up my post. Just enter TX disorderly conduct. Can you follow these very simple instructions?

See -- you should have taken my offer to repeat your own selectively edited version. Because now I'm going to post the whole thing, and it just digs you deeper.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(Casebolt 1, Becton/Bakari 0)​

(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(Casebolt 1, Becton/Bakari 0) .... now 2-0​

(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;

(does not apply)​

(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;

(Casebolt 1, Becton/Bakari 0) ... now 3-0 Casebolt pitching a shutout.​

(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;

(does not apply)​

(6) fights with another in a public place;

(we could cite Casebolt here -- he's the only one fighting -- but it would be redundant with assault so we'll overlook this one... still 3-0)​

(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;

(does not apply)​

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

Ding Ding Ding. Casebolt hits this one out of the park. Becton/Bakari: no score.
Casebolt 4, Citizens 0.​

(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;

(does not apply)​

(10) exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act; or

(does not apply. But hilarious.)​

(11) for a lewd or unlawful purpose:

(A) enters on the property of another and looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in the dwelling;

(B) while on the premises of a hotel or comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's own through a window or other opening in the room; or

(C) while on the premises of a public place, looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using the area.

(does not apply)
​

(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4) that the actor had significant provocation for his abusive or threatening conduct.

(does not apply)​

(c) For purposes of this section:

(1) an act is deemed to occur in a public place or near a private residence if it produces its offensive or proscribed consequences in the public place or near a private residence; and

(2) a noise is presumed to be unreasonable if the noise exceeds a decibel level of 85 after the person making the noise receives notice from a magistrate or peace officer that the noise is a public nuisance.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor unless committed under Subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8), in which event it is a Class B misdemeanor.

(e) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under Subsection (a)(7) or (9) that the person who discharged the firearm had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the person or to another by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code.

(does not apply)
​

I've got four counts on Casebolt and zero on Citizen children.

Oh I'm sorry -- when I say "citizen children" I refer to what you call "little bitches". Which term tells us a lot.

Yep, opinions are like armpits, everyone has one and most all of them stink. You don't like mine, I don't like yours, I'd call that a draw.

BTW, the only thing racist is this whole episode is the coverage, had that been a white girl do you really think it would have made the national news? I don't.

Where did I say it was "racist"?

Don't play the innocent, you've been implying that different people are racist all through this thread.

Also I was actually impressed, you were able to simple instructions after you got your nap.

I implied YOU were/are racist, sure. For obvious reasons including, but not limited to, the DC law above.

I didn't say the story is "racist".

See the word "it"? That's neuter gender.

Well, I think I'm done with this thread, it's been great entertainment screwing with your head, you're a real hoot, we'll have to do it again real soon.

 

[TooTall]

I posted the first section of the law and a link to the whole statute, feel free to go find it. You're not worth the effort.

Go fuck yourself. It's because you're a liar and you know I'll prove it.

Poor baby, are you up past your bed time again. Google is your friend if you're too lazy go back and look up my post. Just enter TX disorderly conduct. Can you follow these very simple instructions?

See -- you should have taken my offer to repeat your own selectively edited version. Because now I'm going to post the whole thing, and it just digs you deeper.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(Casebolt 1, Becton/Bakari 0)​

(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(Casebolt 1, Becton/Bakari 0) .... now 2-0​

(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;

(does not apply)​

(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;

(Casebolt 1, Becton/Bakari 0) ... now 3-0 Casebolt pitching a shutout.​

(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;

(does not apply)​

(6) fights with another in a public place;

(we could cite Casebolt here -- he's the only one fighting -- but it would be redundant with assault so we'll overlook this one... still 3-0)​

(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;

(does not apply)​

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

Ding Ding Ding. Casebolt hits this one out of the park. Becton/Bakari: no score.
Casebolt 4, Citizens 0.​

(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;

(does not apply)​

(10) exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act; or

(does not apply. But hilarious.)​

(11) for a lewd or unlawful purpose:

(A) enters on the property of another and looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in the dwelling;

(B) while on the premises of a hotel or comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's own through a window or other opening in the room; or

(C) while on the premises of a public place, looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using the area.

(does not apply)
​

(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4) that the actor had significant provocation for his abusive or threatening conduct.

(does not apply)​

(c) For purposes of this section:

(1) an act is deemed to occur in a public place or near a private residence if it produces its offensive or proscribed consequences in the public place or near a private residence; and

(2) a noise is presumed to be unreasonable if the noise exceeds a decibel level of 85 after the person making the noise receives notice from a magistrate or peace officer that the noise is a public nuisance.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor unless committed under Subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8), in which event it is a Class B misdemeanor.

(e) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under Subsection (a)(7) or (9) that the person who discharged the firearm had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the person or to another by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code.

(does not apply)
​

I've got four counts on Casebolt and zero on Citizen children.

Oh I'm sorry -- when I say "citizen children" I refer to what you call "little bitches". Which term tells us a lot.

You really don't have clue what those teenagers were saying to the cops so why don't you STFU.

You'll have to grab me by the hair, whip me into the sidewalk and knee me in the back to do that.

And you know what?
It still won't work.

Je suis Nous sommes Dajeeria Becton.

The cop never touched her hair.

 

[TooTall]

I posted the first section of the law and a link to the whole statute, feel free to go find it. You're not worth the effort.

Go fuck yourself. It's because you're a liar and you know I'll prove it.

Poor baby, are you up past your bed time again. Google is your friend if you're too lazy go back and look up my post. Just enter TX disorderly conduct. Can you follow these very simple instructions?

See -- you should have taken my offer to repeat your own selectively edited version. Because now I'm going to post the whole thing, and it just digs you deeper.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(Casebolt 1, Becton/Bakari 0)​

(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(Casebolt 1, Becton/Bakari 0) .... now 2-0​

(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;

(does not apply)​

(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;

(Casebolt 1, Becton/Bakari 0) ... now 3-0 Casebolt pitching a shutout.​

(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;

(does not apply)​

(6) fights with another in a public place;

(we could cite Casebolt here -- he's the only one fighting -- but it would be redundant with assault so we'll overlook this one... still 3-0)​

(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;

(does not apply)​

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

Ding Ding Ding. Casebolt hits this one out of the park. Becton/Bakari: no score.
Casebolt 4, Citizens 0.​

(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;

(does not apply)​

(10) exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act; or

(does not apply. But hilarious.)​

(11) for a lewd or unlawful purpose:

(A) enters on the property of another and looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in the dwelling;

(B) while on the premises of a hotel or comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's own through a window or other opening in the room; or

(C) while on the premises of a public place, looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using the area.

(does not apply)
​

(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4) that the actor had significant provocation for his abusive or threatening conduct.

(does not apply)​

(c) For purposes of this section:

(1) an act is deemed to occur in a public place or near a private residence if it produces its offensive or proscribed consequences in the public place or near a private residence; and

(2) a noise is presumed to be unreasonable if the noise exceeds a decibel level of 85 after the person making the noise receives notice from a magistrate or peace officer that the noise is a public nuisance.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor unless committed under Subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8), in which event it is a Class B misdemeanor.

(e) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under Subsection (a)(7) or (9) that the person who discharged the firearm had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the person or to another by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code.

(does not apply)
​

I've got four counts on Casebolt and zero on Citizen children.

Oh I'm sorry -- when I say "citizen children" I refer to what you call "little bitches". Which term tells us a lot.

You really don't have clue what those teenagers were saying to the cops so why don't you STFU.

It doesn't matter what those teenagers said.
The officer is the adult. Police have no authority to arrest anyone for what they say let alone a child.
If my neighbor's teen says something rude to me I have no legal authority to act physically against that child. I wouldn't anyway as I am and should be mature enough to handle it in a better way for all parties including myself.

Why did you post this if it doesn't matter what they said?
(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(Casebolt 1, Becton/Bakari 0)

(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

 

[TooTall]

I watched the video several times and was very encouraged to see something not often shown on a video. Most of the black teenagers obeyed the lawful orders of the cops and got on the ground.

I did see that mouth of the black girl going mile a minute but without the audio, I don't know what she was saying to the officer. It didn't look like she was saying 'have a nice day.' And, he took her down by a wrist lock, not her hair.

He did resign and knows he was out of control, but no one was injured and that is a good thing.

Doesn't matter what she was saying -- she can say whatever the fuck she wants. As can we all, until the jackboots grab us all by the hair and knee us in the back to shut us up.

For now, we outnumber them, and that is a good thing. It is not only our Constitutionally-guaranteed right but our duty to "mouth off", "act uppity", be a "little bitch" or whatever one chooses to call it, when that authoritarian mindset rears its putrid head.

Mouth off to a cop and you deserve whatever you get.

Unfortunately for you jackboot fetishists -------- that's not what the law says.

Sucks to be you.

Try mouthing off to the next Cop you see and get back to me.

If he starts pulling a Casebolt, you can count on it.
And you should too.

If Casebolt or any Officer gives you a lawful order to get on the ground it would be best that you do that like a number of the black teenagers did.. If you don't get on the ground, he is authorized to put you on the ground and hold you their until he feels it is safe to let you up..

 

[MikeK]

If Casebolt or any Officer gives you a lawful order to get on the ground it would be best that you do that like a number of the black teenagers did.. If you don't get on the ground, he is authorized to put you on the ground and hold you their until he feels it is safe to let you up..

The pivotal word in the above statement is, "lawful." Do you believe Casebolt's conduct in this example was lawful? Or do you think his actions were extreme and entirely uncalled for? And I'm talking about socially accepted standards of conduct, not the standard which seems to have evolved in the arbitrary credo of Ptl. Casebolt and a lot of cops who think the way he does.

While it's possible Casebolt could manage to convince a judge or jury he actually felt threatened by that adolescent girl and it was therefore necessary to restrain her the way he did, I think you are sufficiently perceptive to know he either is lying, or he is much too paranoid and impulsive to be a police officer, or he has progressively acquired the orientation which has led to an increasing tendency on the part of cops to believe they know best how things should be done and public opinion be damned.

 

[TooTall]

If Casebolt or any Officer gives you a lawful order to get on the ground it would be best that you do that like a number of the black teenagers did.. If you don't get on the ground, he is authorized to put you on the ground and hold you their until he feels it is safe to let you up..

The pivotal word in the above statement is, "lawful." Do you believe Casebolt's conduct in this example was lawful? Or do you think his actions were extreme and entirely uncalled for? And I'm talking about socially accepted standards of conduct, not the standard which seems to have evolved in the arbitrary credo of Ptl. Casebolt and a lot of cops who think the way he does.

While it's possible Casebolt could manage to convince a judge or jury he actually felt threatened by that adolescent girl and it was therefore necessary to restrain her the way he did, I think you are sufficiently perceptive to know he either is lying, or he is much too paranoid and impulsive to be a police officer, or he has progressively acquired the orientation which has led to an increasing tendency on the part of cops to believe they know best how things should be done and public opinion be damned.

You should have stopped after the first 9 words. "Get on the ground" is a lawful order and it does mean within a reasonable amount of time.

 

[RKMBrown]

If Casebolt or any Officer gives you a lawful order to get on the ground it would be best that you do that like a number of the black teenagers did.. If you don't get on the ground, he is authorized to put you on the ground and hold you their until he feels it is safe to let you up..

The pivotal word in the above statement is, "lawful." Do you believe Casebolt's conduct in this example was lawful? Or do you think his actions were extreme and entirely uncalled for? And I'm talking about socially accepted standards of conduct, not the standard which seems to have evolved in the arbitrary credo of Ptl. Casebolt and a lot of cops who think the way he does.

While it's possible Casebolt could manage to convince a judge or jury he actually felt threatened by that adolescent girl and it was therefore necessary to restrain her the way he did, I think you are sufficiently perceptive to know he either is lying, or he is much too paranoid and impulsive to be a police officer, or he has progressively acquired the orientation which has led to an increasing tendency on the part of cops to believe they know best how things should be done and public opinion be damned.

You should have stopped after the first 9 words. "Get on the ground" is a lawful order and it does mean within a reasonable amount of time.

Gentlemen don't order young girls in bikinis to get on the ground with their face in the dirt. Your defense of this ass hole.. is dumb.

 

[Pogo]

If Casebolt or any Officer gives you a lawful order to get on the ground it would be best that you do that like a number of the black teenagers did.. If you don't get on the ground, he is authorized to put you on the ground and hold you their until he feels it is safe to let you up..

The pivotal word in the above statement is, "lawful." Do you believe Casebolt's conduct in this example was lawful? Or do you think his actions were extreme and entirely uncalled for? And I'm talking about socially accepted standards of conduct, not the standard which seems to have evolved in the arbitrary credo of Ptl. Casebolt and a lot of cops who think the way he does.

While it's possible Casebolt could manage to convince a judge or jury he actually felt threatened by that adolescent girl and it was therefore necessary to restrain her the way he did, I think you are sufficiently perceptive to know he either is lying, or he is much too paranoid and impulsive to be a police officer, or he has progressively acquired the orientation which has led to an increasing tendency on the part of cops to believe they know best how things should be done and public opinion be damned.

And that scenario with the jury couldn't happen anyway, since Casebolt has already not only resigned but apologized for his actions. Pretty hard to backtrack that, not that he or anyone in their right mind would attempt to. Which makes it all the more bizarre to watch these authoritarian sycophants still hanging on desperately trying to defend an actor who's already confessed. That requires a leap out of the realm of reality altogether.

Casebolt's issue wasn't telling her to get on the ground; it was going out to fetch her while she's already walking away following his own order, grabbing her by the hair and whipping her to the ground. These actions are precisely why wails of surprise and shock erupt from the onlookers exactly at that moment -- a collective disbelief that a uniformed police officer would act like that. Everyone could instantly see behaviour that was way out of line.

Casebolt did too, once he got control of himself. Otherwise he'd have had no need to apologize. That apology is the elephant in the room for the sycophants still hanging on. To do that you have to completely suspend reality and declare the apology to be an Un-event that never happened.

 

[MikeK]

You should have stopped after the first 9 words. "Get on the ground" is a lawful order and it does mean within a reasonable amount of time.

Unless one is profoundly affected by authoritarian/submissive personality syndrome, the command to "Get on the ground!" is believed to be lawful only when circumstances call for such extreme measures.

The common use of this extremely aggressive practice came about as the result of collective police union demands for radically increased methods of enhancing "officer safety," which became the imposingly primary concern of all police procedural training. The [/i]"Get in the ground!"[/i] command has evolved, as anyone who watches the the tv documentary series, COPS, knows, to the level where it clearly is used far more than is necessary. And very often it is used in a manner which is far more aggressive than necessary and frequently is employed in a manner which is excessive and is categorically brutal.

 

[thanatos144]

If Casebolt or any Officer gives you a lawful order to get on the ground it would be best that you do that like a number of the black teenagers did.. If you don't get on the ground, he is authorized to put you on the ground and hold you their until he feels it is safe to let you up..

The pivotal word in the above statement is, "lawful." Do you believe Casebolt's conduct in this example was lawful? Or do you think his actions were extreme and entirely uncalled for? And I'm talking about socially accepted standards of conduct, not the standard which seems to have evolved in the arbitrary credo of Ptl. Casebolt and a lot of cops who think the way he does.

While it's possible Casebolt could manage to convince a judge or jury he actually felt threatened by that adolescent girl and it was therefore necessary to restrain her the way he did, I think you are sufficiently perceptive to know he either is lying, or he is much too paranoid and impulsive to be a police officer, or he has progressively acquired the orientation which has led to an increasing tendency on the part of cops to believe they know best how things should be done and public opinion be damned.

You should have stopped after the first 9 words. "Get on the ground" is a lawful order and it does mean within a reasonable amount of time.

Gentlemen don't order young girls in bikinis to get on the ground with their face in the dirt. Your defense of this ass hole.. is dumb.

Again damn shame police will still protect you because you sure dont deserve it.

 

[RKMBrown]

If Casebolt or any Officer gives you a lawful order to get on the ground it would be best that you do that like a number of the black teenagers did.. If you don't get on the ground, he is authorized to put you on the ground and hold you their until he feels it is safe to let you up..

The pivotal word in the above statement is, "lawful." Do you believe Casebolt's conduct in this example was lawful? Or do you think his actions were extreme and entirely uncalled for? And I'm talking about socially accepted standards of conduct, not the standard which seems to have evolved in the arbitrary credo of Ptl. Casebolt and a lot of cops who think the way he does.

While it's possible Casebolt could manage to convince a judge or jury he actually felt threatened by that adolescent girl and it was therefore necessary to restrain her the way he did, I think you are sufficiently perceptive to know he either is lying, or he is much too paranoid and impulsive to be a police officer, or he has progressively acquired the orientation which has led to an increasing tendency on the part of cops to believe they know best how things should be done and public opinion be damned.

You should have stopped after the first 9 words. "Get on the ground" is a lawful order and it does mean within a reasonable amount of time.

Gentlemen don't order young girls in bikinis to get on the ground with their face in the dirt. Your defense of this ass hole.. is dumb.

Again damn shame police will still protect you because you sure dont deserve it.

wow... yeah cause if I don't like people assaulting little girls I don't deserve to live... You're some piece of shit.

 

[thanatos144]

If Casebolt or any Officer gives you a lawful order to get on the ground it would be best that you do that like a number of the black teenagers did.. If you don't get on the ground, he is authorized to put you on the ground and hold you their until he feels it is safe to let you up..

The pivotal word in the above statement is, "lawful." Do you believe Casebolt's conduct in this example was lawful? Or do you think his actions were extreme and entirely uncalled for? And I'm talking about socially accepted standards of conduct, not the standard which seems to have evolved in the arbitrary credo of Ptl. Casebolt and a lot of cops who think the way he does.

While it's possible Casebolt could manage to convince a judge or jury he actually felt threatened by that adolescent girl and it was therefore necessary to restrain her the way he did, I think you are sufficiently perceptive to know he either is lying, or he is much too paranoid and impulsive to be a police officer, or he has progressively acquired the orientation which has led to an increasing tendency on the part of cops to believe they know best how things should be done and public opinion be damned.

You should have stopped after the first 9 words. "Get on the ground" is a lawful order and it does mean within a reasonable amount of time.

Gentlemen don't order young girls in bikinis to get on the ground with their face in the dirt. Your defense of this ass hole.. is dumb.

Again damn shame police will still protect you because you sure dont deserve it.

wow... yeah cause if I don't like people assaulting little girls I don't deserve to live... You're some piece of shit.

He didn't assault her you lying shitheel....