TexasCHLforum.com

Jusme

WildBill wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:58 pm
ELB wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:10 am
That sounds like it was machine translated from another language.
I thought the same.

Either that or they just published the reporters notes verbatim.

Jusme

srothstein wrote: Thu Apr 04, 2019 11:51 pm
WildBill wrote: Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:17 pm
Jusme wrote: Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:30 pm I believe that a bill should be introduced, in the legislature, that mandates, that no law enforcement agency, in Texas, can do it's own internal affairs investigation, in any officer involved shooting, or death of a person in custody ...
Jusme, I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think that this would work. I have no idea how many cases there are every year in Texas, but I would think it would be too cumbersome and inefficient.
I actually like this idea but it won't work for one major reason. When an agency investigates its own officers, it can legally force officers to make a statement. This is because an internal investigation can be for internal discipline and the findings not used for a criminal case. The forced statement is not admissible in court for criminal purposes. There was a Supreme Court case on this, known as Garrity v. New Jersey. When an outside agency does the investigation, it cannot compel the officers to make a statement.

If this can be handled in the law requiring the outside investigation, I could support this, as could many officers (obviously some will never support it). And it might be done by modifying the current law. The law requires every in custody death to be reported to the AG. This includes deaths that occur while attempting to take the person into custody, such as chases.

I would even support just expanding that law to require every officer involved shooting where a human being is targeted to be reported to the AG. That would at least be a step in the right direction.

No one, including LEO can legally be forced to give an incriminating statement. The only thing that can happen, is that they can be fired, for refusing to participate in an internal affairs investigation. LEO do not give up their fifth amendment rights when they put on a badge.

Jusme

Paladin wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:43 pm
philip964 wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:24 pm https://www.click2houston.com/news/2nd- ... orney-says

Officer at center of investigation retires.

In 2002, Goines was in trouble for keeping crack cocaine he’d purchased in a drug buy. The evidence was found unlogged in the toolbox of his city vehicle.

That particular problem persisted, because drugs were also found in Goines' city vehicle after the botched raid in January.
It would appear that Goines had a habit of keeping unlogged narcotics on hand. Unlogged narcotics have been used by other police departments to manufacture crimes

Yeah unlogged narcotics could accidentally get dropped, contaminating a crime scene.

Jusme

WildBill wrote: Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:17 pm
Jusme wrote: Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:30 pm I believe that a bill should be introduced, in the legislature, that mandates, that no law enforcement agency, in Texas, can do it's own internal affairs investigation, in any officer involved shooting, or death of a person in custody ...
Jusme, I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think that this would work. I have no idea how many cases there are every year in Texas, but I would think it would be too cumbersome and inefficient.

I don't know how many there are either, but each one has to be investigated. Either, by the department in which it occurred, or by another agency, such as the Texas Rangers. This case in Houston, is a perfect example. There is such a prevailing sense, of corruption, ineptness, etc, that, any internal investigation, will be viewed, as a potential cover up.
One other option, could be one independent agency, to investigate all cases, but, I think that would become too political, and would only increase the size of government, and add another layer, of law enforcement, not needed. As I said, most internal investigations, are done well, and above board, but there are some that, at least outwardly, smell a little fishy. JMHO

Jusme

I believe that a bill should be introduced, in the legislature, that mandates, that no law enforcement agency, in Texas, can do it's own internal affairs investigation, in any officer involved shooting, or death of a person in custody. They can still handle citizen complaints, departmental rules violations etc. But I would recommend that for each city PD case, the County Sheriff handle the investigation, for each County case, the DPS/ Texas Rangers, and for each DPS/ Ranger/ Game Warden, that the SO of the county in which it occurs, head up the investigation.
Investigation of your own officers, is more often than not, very above board, however, the specter of a cover up, looms large, and destroys the confidence of the public, that department is duty bound to serve.
JMHO

Jusme

baseballguy2001 wrote: Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:35 pm Mr. Cotton, Sir, don't large departments compel their employees to answer questions, especially if they have cases open, or those employees could be terminated? And if terminated, that could mean a loss of retirement benefits? I didn't mean to imply they don't enjoy a 5th amendment right, just that this is an attempt, IMHO, to escape and still get paid.

They can be terminated, for refusing to cooperate with an internal affairs investigation. Which with the power of the Union in HPD, would not be likely. However, if they are being charged criminally, they can still refuse to answer, questions, and not make any incriminating statements.

Jusme

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:20 pm
baseballguy2001 wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2019 5:57 pm I'm afraid you guys are missing the point ... once he retires, any questions he's asked, he can refuse to answer via his 5th amendment right. If he's still a police officer, he must answer all the questions. This is an attempt to stay out of prison but also to keep whatever pension he can get. Goines probably can't risk this sort of strategy since he is staring at a few more surgeries.
Police officers enjoy Fifth Amendment privileges as do all Americans.

Chas.

Exactly, putting on a badge does no force you to give up any of your Constitutional rights.

Jusme

EastTexasRancher wrote: Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:05 am I'm at a point where I even wonder if the small amounts of pot and coke that were "found" were even really there to begin with?

With evidence mounting, against the lead officer, even if it was, it will be very suspect.

Jusme

philip964 wrote: Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:24 pm From the news stories:

1. Officers entered the home. ( no knock? )
2. Officer is attacked by dog. Shoots and kills dog.
3. Man emerges from rear room and shoots officer in the shoulder, officer falls on to couch in living room.
4. Women in House attempts to grab officers gun who is on the couch and is shot and killed by officers.
5. Man with .357 hand gun wounds critically two officers and wounds one other officer.
6. Officer kills man.

Is this the sequence of events?

Man apparently is a really good shot or something is wrong with this.

Close quarters room full of targets, close together, being a marksman not required.

Jusme

Prayers sent.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 10 matches

Re: 5 Officers Shot In Houston - Pray

Re: 5 Officers Shot In Houston - Pray

Re: 5 Officers Shot In Houston - Pray

Re: 5 Officers Shot In Houston - Pray

Re: 5 Officers Shot In Houston - Pray

Re: 5 Officers Shot In Houston - Pray

Re: 5 Officers Shot In Houston - Pray

Re: 5 Officers Shot In Houston - Pray

Re: 5 Officers Shot In Houston - Pray

Re: 5 Officers Shot In Houston - Pray