Dog Brothers Public Forum

Did you read your own link?  They are NOT fully trained Police Officers.  They are licensed and "trained" campus police.  Houston Police have much greater training. 
Further note they are not a member of the Police Union.

Heck, as a private citizen I have the "authority" to jump in my car and assist an officer down.  That doesn't necessarily make it smart.

The Officer should have stayed on Campus or at minimum requested permission to leave.

Read you own link.

Protecting the "University Community" i.e. on campus is what they do.  NOT the City of Houston.

"What We Do"

"Rice University Police Department takes the lead in providing a safe environment for the university community by protecting life and property. To achieve this protection, RUPD maintains patrols to deter and detect crime, to report fires and safety hazards, and to control traffic on campus.  The police department is also responsible for investigating all crimes that occur on campus."

Hmmm I don't claim to be the legal scholar here, but the phrase

"incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence"

bothers me.

Grateful for Easter.

Forgiveness is an important message to remember...

"Further, as pointed out, Montalvo was not in eminent danger (or any danger for that matter) when he initially saw Uhler. 
"The 42-year-old ran to the street, identified two suspects and chased them to the next block.""

Are you saying that Montalvo has to be in "eminent danger", or imminent danger for that matter  to try to catch the bad guy?

Ummm Uhler has since died from Montalvo's action.  Uhler was breaking into a car.  A piece of property.  And he was running away.
Without the property!   

So I guess yeah, before killing someone I need to feel that I or a loved one are in imminent danger.

Obviously something went terribly wrong with the supposed "submission" hold.

Unless there is imminent danger, if you kill someone, if not criminal charges, at minimum expect to face a very serious civil lawsuit.
Heck, I bet even if the police had done the same, submitted/choked and killed a teenage car thief running away, a huge dollar settlement offer would be on the table.

And it looks worse if a private citizen does the same.

Uhler is dead and I bet Montalvo's nightmare is just beginning. 

Or is it "excessive force"?

The move blocked the teen's oxygen flow, causing a brain injury, Soriano said.

Further, as pointed out, Montalvo was not in eminent danger (or any danger for that matter) when he initially saw Uhler. 
"The 42-year-old ran to the street, identified two suspects and chased them to the next block."

Then applied a choke hold causing permanent brain injury.

Doesn't sound cut and dried to me.

I don't know the answer; it will be interesting to see what happens.  But I think one of the lessons here is that you
could be criminally prosecuted and I am willing to wager, there will be a civil suit which may cost the Montalvo a lot
more than his car.

Think twice before you become involved.  And if you do, be willing to pay the penalties.

Thank you.

I'm curious, in this situation, if the guy had politely refused (it was a traffic stop) the strip search and refused
to let his car be searched what would have happened?

I don't; it was meant gender neutral.  But you are right; the women in blue as well as the men put their life on the line for us.
I am grateful for their service...

Cindy and I are taking advantage of an introductory offer of one month in Bikram Yoga.   More on this soon.

I am looking forward to hearing your comments/analysis of Bikram Yoga......

Thank you.
It may well be true; but obviously, (no offense) these are not his words or opinion. That exact same language is all over the internet;
it looks more like a unsubstantiated rumor.  But I am sure the truth will come out.  It will be interesting to see what truly did happened.

  Also, the gym has a very interesting new machine for "bicycling" with the arms.  It is EXTREMELY well made and seems to do very good things."

I would add that I LOVE the heat, but am not wild about some of the BY postures for me and find somewhat irksome the pressurefrom teachers pushing me to precision in form that is currently out of reach for me. 

The bicycling machine with arms you mention is a marvelous machine.  I injured my knee once; it was my primary method of aerobic exercise.  Also, I injured my shoulder once; again this machine was great.  Unfortunately, I can only find it at my physical therapist.

As for Bikram, glad you like the heat; I do too.  In the heat you can do more, yet be careful; you can pull something very easy (I did twice) overextending at first especially in the cold weather after class.  Yet I find the heat cleansing.  Ignore the "push BEYOND your limit" chant.

Regarding the "pushing"; if it is done constructively, i.e. roll your right shoulder in I appreciate the attention, or simply "try harder" but if it borders on harassment (I understand your point) I either ignore them and/or politely after class tell them; I can be direct   that  I do not appreciate being pushed beyond my limits.  In your case, given your physical exercise routine, I am sure you know you body.  Work on form, but don't push beyond limits. 

Regarding "irksome" again I understand your point; but to BY's credit; each pose has a purpose.  It can be boring, but each pose has benefit even if you are not
able to do it to the maximum, i.e. extend your leg in the standing series, or touch your head to the ground, etc.  A good attempt, pushing to your limit
is beneficial in and of itself.  And after time, you will be surprised at your progress.

My objection is the repetition of the poses.  It's the Jack in the Box approach to Yoga (he's a brilliant businessman). That's why I mix other yoga classes. And weights, etc. Plus aerobic.  In the end I find myself going once every two weeks or so, sometimes more often. 

Nope; a criminal is a criminal. I am grateful to law enforcement for doing whatever they can to stop anyone from committing violent crime,
whether they are here legally or illegally.

Woof,
 His blood and the blood of countless other American citizens is on the hands of our politicians and bureaucrats that put ideology and votes above doing their sworn duty. I hope they rot in hell for it! And for the people who keep putting them in office, shame on you, the families of these innocent people that are murdered by illegal aliens should spit in your face when you leave the polling place.
                                           P.C.

While I am against illegal immigration and my heart goes out to the family of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, I think your comments are a bit absurd, virulent and over the line towards illegal immigrants.    Most illegal immigrants come to America because they simply want a job.  Hardly an offense for a politician or bureaucrat to "rot in hell".

Was Agent Terry even killed by illegal immigrants?

"Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot and killed near Rio Rico, Arizona, while attempting to apprehend a group of armed subjects. The suspects had been preying on illegal immigrants with the intent to rob them.

Agent Terry and several other agents were attempting to arrest the group when shots were exchanged between the suspects and agents. Agent Terry was reportedly struck in the back by rounds fired by a suspect armed with an AK-47."

http://www.odmp.org/officer/20596-border-patrol-agent-brian-a.-terry

"In an internal investigation, there is no right to remain silent and no right to an attorney."

Which makes sense to me.

Perhaps it "makes sense" but it is not true.  A Police Officer DOES have the absolute right to remain silent AND demand
an attorney.  He has the SAME constitutional rights that you and I do working for our private employer.  Frankly, the police officer has
MORE rights and protection!

Let's say you work for IBM in LA.  Let's say that their internal audit department thinks you have been
stealing and they want to interview you.  You are ordered to appear; you have the the choice to attend and answer their questions
honestly and forthrightly without and attorney present or refuse.  Hopefully, since you are honest person you will attend and that will be the
end of that.  But maybe you did do something wrong?  Or maybe you don't like how the flow is going?
At all times you have the absolute right to remain silent and ask for an attorney, to leave the building and the 5th
amendment right to refuse to answer any further questions.  However, if you do, IBM may threaten you with
job loss and subsequently will probably terminate your employment.  That makes sense to me.

As a police officer anywhere in America you have the same constitutional rights; you have the absolute right to remain
silent and demand an attorney in an internal investigation.

Garrity, as GM posted above never stated that a police officer cannot refuse to answer questions or demand an attorney.
It only advises law enforcement employees that they must answer questions posed by investigators or face the possibility of administrative
sanction, including job loss.  The exact same situation as our fictitious IBM employee who will probably face sanctions or lose his job if he
refuses to answer questions.  However if there is any concern of criminal culpability the police officer may at any time constitutionally
refuse to answer questions and demand and attorney.

In fact, to facilitate compliance, Garrity protects and gives rights/benefits to police officers MORE than the common citizen.  In my analogy above,
if after the IBM internal audit interview it was determined by the IBM internal audit investigator that you had committed a crime, your
testimony and comments to audit WOULD be discoverable and could be admitted at trial whether you chose to testify or not.  A thorough internal
investigation could be damning but Garrity uniquely PROTECTS police officer from their testimony and comments being discoverable. 
"The warning also advises that answers provided by the employees cannot be used against them in a criminal proceeding"

BTW, if IA interviews a cop, the officer does NOT have the right to remain silent or have legal council present.

I have the upmost respect for police officers and the difficulty of their work especially in the inner city.

Also, in the spirit of full disclosure I was once arrested at age 17 for an open beer container, but since then
I have never been arrested.  I have no criminal record.   

That said, while I don't know about your jurisdiction, in Los Angeles, the LAPD and officer DOES have the right to have
legal counsel.  The Police Union is very proactive.

Further it is my understanding that in ALL jurisdictions a police officer has the same constitutional rights that any
normal citizen has; perhaps more so here since the LAPD Union is quite strong.  He may of course be fired for not responding to IA,
but then so would I be possibly fired by my boss for not answering questions.  But I do NOT, NOR does a police officer
have to incriminate himself.

Regarding yours and Zen's comments, I think the exchange got a little out of hand.  I think what he was driving at
is that some/many police officers take advantage of their uniform.  I've rode along and listened to officers in their cars talk to their wives,
or speed if they are late for a staff meeting.  I've watched numerous times officers park in red zones to go buy a hamburger.  I've seem them ask for free food.
I've had friends (cute) being asked out for a date when they are being given a traffic ticket; i.e. give the number and no ticket.  
Heck, I have had cute friends have their ticket erased for a date. I've had police officers butt in line and say, "I'm a police officer" when they are with a
date or their wife, etc. etc.  At my old house my neighbor was a LAPD police captain.  His dog barked all night
long.  I complained and he basically said, "What are you going to do about it" and he laughed at me.  Happy ending,
I bought him lots of imported beer and he quieted the dog.  But again, he used his authority....

A big deal? No.  Nothing "criminal" about it.  But it shouldn't happen. No.  I too like to think an officer should obey
the law equal to me and/or even greater than me since he is an officer in a position of trust and authority.  
I "trust" policemen like teachers and doctors, and I am disappointed if they do not live up to my trust.

What did you and Cindy think of Bikram Yoga?  I do it once every one to two weeks mixed
in with my other workouts.

As Scurvy said, "Well, even if he gets fired at least he's alive. In the end, that's all that matters."
And Rarick said, it does sound like a "clear case of self defense".

I agree with these statements. 

But, he should definitely get fired.  The companies first responsibility is to the company.  And company policy was clear.

Let's look at a bank robber.  Should the teller's be armed and start shooting inside the bank? 
If innocents get shot - who is liable?
If the teller shoots a coworker - who is liable? 
(Heck even if there is no bank robbery co workers sometimes shoot each other and if their employer
allowed weapons at work - who is liable?)
If a bullet goes through the wall/window and someone dies - who is liable?

As for case law, I doubt if you will find any criticizing an employer for forbidding employees to have guns at work, but you will
find lot's of case law and judgment awards against companies where an employee's action with a weapon accidentally injured
an innocent third party.

(Moved from Homeland Security and American Freedom per Crafty's request)

Speaking of "bully" feel about it, someone posted a while ago (I couldn't find it) that photography is allowed/protected in a public
place.  I agree; I enjoy photography (film) and am up on the laws.  Yet I find Police want to be exempt from the law - can't take the heat???
Or they just enjoy the intimidation?  No matter how you look at it, it's wrong.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2008566,00.html?hpt=T2


Anthony Graber, a Maryland Air National Guard staff sergeant, faces up to 16 years in prison. His crime? He videotaped his March encounter with a state trooper who pulled him over for speeding on a motorcycle. Then Graber put the video — which could put the officer in a bad light — up on YouTube.
It doesn't sound like much. But Graber is not the only person being slapped down by the long arm of the law for the simple act of videotaping the police in a public place. Prosecutors across the U.S. claim the videotaping violates wiretap laws — a stretch, to put it mildly.

Law enforcement is fighting back. In the case of Graber — a young husband and father who had never been arrested — the police searched his residence and seized computers. Graber spent 26 hours in jail even before facing the wiretapping charges that could conceivably put him away for 16 years. (It is hard to believe he will actually get anything like that, however. One point on his side: the Maryland attorney general's office recently gave its opinion that a court would likely find that the wiretap law does not apply to traffic stops.)

The legal argument prosecutors rely on in police video cases is thin. They say the audio aspect of the videos violates wiretap laws because, in some states, both parties to a conversation must consent to having a private conversation recorded. The hole in their argument is the word "private." A police officer arresting or questioning someone on a highway or street is not having a private conversation. He is engaging in a public act.

Even if these cases do not hold up in court, the police can do a lot of damage just by threatening to arrest and prosecute people. "We see a fair amount of intimidation — police saying, 'You can't do that. It's illegal,'" says Christopher Calabrese, a lawyer with the ACLU's Washington office. It discourages people from filming, he says, even when they have the right to film.

Most people are not so game for a fight with the police. They just stop filming. These are the cases no one finds out about, in which there is no arrest or prosecution, but the public's freedoms have nevertheless been eroded.

Budget cuts are affecting L.A. County Sheriff's Department

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-no-fingerprints-20100611,0,3363106.story

The idea is that ever-growing categories of criminal wrong doing will not be pursued by the DA due to lack of resources, case backlogs, etc.

Perhaps, but then historically the great majority of criminal cases are plea bargained anyway.

Still, my point/clarification is that "a "wronged citizen" can still seek justice via the courts".  However, the process may be slower.

As a daily (and knowledgeable)  knife carrier (gun laws are very restrictive in LA) I feel
compelled to comment on Shiv Works, Wave, and Zero Tolerance Knifes. Also, I respectfully disagree
with comments posted by Maxx.  However, I do firmly agree, having worked and with
provided legal support to the LASD; they are an outstanding organization.  I wish Maxx
good luck; if accepted, he will be joining a fine group.

California Knife laws are quite "liberal" compared to many states.  Further, the laws
are quite explicit.  Switch Blade, Balasong, and assisted opening knifes are illegal.
I question the legality of Zero Tolerance Knives.  However, Wave action knives
are legal. 

Of note, CA knife laws do not mention intent.  While you may rile and upset an officer of the law
if your answer to the question, "Why do you carry a knife" is "For self defense", there
is nothing illegal or wrong with that answer.  Of course you must follow the State and
Local Laws regarding length, assisted opening, fixed versus folder, schools, etc.  However, there
is nothing wrong with having a "snake on it" or what method you use to hold the knife.
Nor is there any law regarding how you open the knife or how it is marketed.  Pi'kal style
knives are an excellent choice for self defense.

The issue is, "did you obey the law?".  And further, if you do use a knife in self defense,
"was if appropriate?".  Earlier on this forum GM gave some excellent examples of
appropriate use of force.  The "kind of knife" etc. is not relevant; only if the use
of force was appropriate and necessary to save lives; yours and/or others.

Stickgrappler; thank you for your thoughtful reply.  I understand your points.

You might check out the Sebenza; it is a very well made knife and under 4".
Utilitarian if never used for self defense.

best wishes,

james

I played tennis for my school in college.  And a lot of squash later.
Sorry, but the best answer is rest.  And don't start up again until there is no pain.
Work on other aspects, foot work, or...

I'm sure you know far more about stick than I do.
As a side note however, often if the form is incorrect, the injury is aggravated.
So pay attention during practice.  And don't use pipes, weights, or anything to aggravate
the injury.

A follow up to the recent CA Supreme Court ruling.

Patt Morrison LA Times
December 25, 2008

Uh, gentlemen? You three wise men? As your lawyer, I'm advising you not to go there.
No question, the family really needs help, especially with a newborn and all. But why take a chance? And the gifts? Honestly, you might just be opening yourselves up to a lawsuit. Frankincense? Myrrh? Somebody might be allergic. You know what those Roman attorneys say: abundans cautela non nocet -- better safe than sorry.

Crazy notion, isn't it?

Back then, certainly. Maybe not now. The California Supreme Court has given fresh meaning to "no good deed goes unpunished." It ruled last week that a woman who yanked a co-worker from a crashed car four years ago, and may have made her injuries worse, can be sued because what she did wasn't medical care.

The 4-3 decision goes to the heart of another biblical reference: the good Samaritan.
It was Halloween 2004 when several co-workers took two cars to go out for a night on the town. After one car, the second car stopped. Its passenger, Lisa Torti, leaped out to help. Torti, who said she thought the wrecked car was about to catch fire, grabbed Alexandra Van Horn and pulled her out.
Pulling her out "like a rag doll" allegedly made Van Horn's spinal injuries worse. The court's ruling allows Van Horn, now a paraplegic, to sue Torti. It also indicates that the provision that shields good Samaritans from liability, enacted by the Legislature in 1980, applies only to people giving medical care in an emergency.

There's a stink about this, and there should be. The implications for all of us are enormous. It's another chilling effect in a society where we're already freezing each other out.
You don't dare hug a hurting child who's not your own -- someone might call you a molester and call the cops. You don't ever apologize for anything, even if it's your fault; you'd be laying the groundwork for a lawsuit.

And now, when you see an accident or a crime, what will pop into your mind? "I have to help"? Or, "Will I get sued for trying to help?" Whatever your inner Samaritan is telling you, your inner Lawyer might be suggesting you just drive on past.
If everyone feels this way, we could be damaging a social compact that's deeply rooted -- the impulse to help others in trouble, even strangers.

My pal Michael Shermer, the author, science columnist and founder of the Skeptics Society, told me that evolution has an explanation for altruism. "By extending a helping hand to those who will reciprocate my altruism, I am helping myself." It's the Golden Rule, the expectation of getting back what you give.
In a complex world, we struggle to keep this going. But "if a good Samaritan," Shermer said, "can be held responsible for injuries resulting from the rescue attempt, this sends a signal to the rest of us to shut off our natural inclination to help, and [instead] to reinforce that other natural tendency we have of selfishness."

Would that Sylmar hospice nurse have risked her own skin last month to help elderly neighbors evacuate ahead of the fire that destroyed their mobile homes? It wasn't emergency medical care she was giving, after all.

Would the 19 people awarded the Carnegie Medal for heroism this week -- like the man who ran in front of a train to save a child -- have risked their lives if they'd known they were risking a lawsuit too?

Some states have "duty to rescue" laws; in Washington state, it's a misdemeanor not to help someone who's seriously injured, unless it would endanger you.
But laws vary. Some places require an "imminent peril" to the victim -- if there isn't one, the rescuer could be sued. ("Imminent peril" may mean one thing to paramedics and something else to the rest of us, who see crashed cars catch fire all the time on TV and in movies. In reality, collisions are a factor in only 3% of vehicle fires, according to data from the U.S. Fire Administration and a National Fire Protection Assn. survey.

This ruling is practically an engraved invitation to the Legislature to clear up the meaning in that 1980 code. Even with the budget apocalypse, legislators should attend to this fast, before the notion gets set in mental cement, that good Samaritans are just asking to get sued. While they're at it, why not devote, say, a couple of pennies from every traffic fine to help pay medical costs for victims inadvertently injured by a Samaritan's rescue attempt, like the woman who brought this case.

As for that New Testament passage, in which the Samaritan comes across a man who had been robbed, beaten and left for dead, "and bound up his wounds ... and took care of him" -- it'd be a shame to have to put an asterisk there, with the notation, "Not applicable in California."

As I did a search, I found "choke hold" often used interchangeably with control holds, carotid holds, and other holds including "stopping the blood flow".   Further, I think most laymen will use the term interchangeably.   

Between 1975 and 1982, 16 men died after the application of choke holds by officers with the Los Angeles Police Department. According to the LAPD's reports, five of the men had bar-arm holds placed on them, which cuts off air passage.
Nine of the deaths occurred after officers used the carotid artery hold, and in two of the cases, there was some uncertainty about which hold was used.
"The carotid hold -- it's a terrible idea, physically and medically," said Los Angeles civil rights attorney Michael R. Mitchell, who sought an injunction against the city of Los Angeles to bar the use of the control holds in the 1970s and 1980s.

Mitchell argued the case when it went before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1983. One count alleged that police officers "regularly and routinely" applied choke holds in situations where they are not threatened by the use of deadly force, and that numerous persons had been injured or killed as a result of the application of the carotid hold and other choke holds.
While the court did not side with Mitchell, the LAPD saw fit to raise the threshold for use, allowing the carotid hold only when there is an immediate threat of serious bodily injury or death.