Storm Chaser arrested

[steveh552]

So how many teenage wives do you have? Just curious..

Not a single one, no ring on this finger

 

[SCPD]

Humm violation of civil rights, wrongful imprisonment. Since several witnesses were there stating that the violation of the law was not valid. One could argue that Vic Mackey commited perjury. Hope Crane county has a good DA

But his Father-in-law is the Sheriff. The Good-ole-boy systems is well intact in Texas! He has a great attorney for this and at no charge too. I hope he kicks the snot out of them in the legal arena!

I am waiting to see if the Texas Ranger's get involved in this. If they do, Crane Co. might have more troubles than they reconed to bargin with.

 

[loumaag]

But his Father-in-law is the Sheriff. The Good-ole-boy systems is well intact in Texas! ...

Again, there is no hard information on this.

I am waiting to see if the Texas Ranger's get involved in this. If they do, Crane Co. might have more troubles than they reconed to bargin with.

Yeah, that will make things even more interesting.

Has anyone not realized that Texas is its own world? They do as they want, even make things up when they have no evidence of wrong doing. The over 400 children taken by a "phone call" by a girl that they have yet to find proves to the world that they do things like that.

Among the 400+ children are 53 teen age girls (from 14 through 17), of those, 31 are either pregnant or already have children. Please, the raid was justified.

In Ohio, if a cop gives you a lawful order (move on) and you do not obey, you are subject to arrest for failing to obey the order of a police officer, I am assuming it is the same elseware.

For telling you to "move on" to be lawful, there must be a reason and it must be a real reason, not one you dreamed up after the fact. There was no crime being committed; there was no crime scene to be secured; people were lawfully parked, during the day, in a road side park; even in Ohio (I think it is still in the US) you can't order someone to move on in that circumstance.

People keep saying that they want to see the entire video, the entire video (based on what I have seen written by Brian Barnes) is being held on his attorney's advice until they (the legal team) can review it. What I want to know is, how come Brian Barnes got arrested but the reporter (who by the way is going to make an excellent witness) was not? Neither left the area when improperly ordered to do so.

 

[fireant]

Reporter was more than likely not arrested because it would be plastered all over the air and the media would have a hay day with the department. However harassing the storm chaser he figured he could get by with because he had no media ties. He more than likely never dreamed it too would be plastered all over the news.

If the officer was out of line he needs to be punished. However its been my experience even when officers act out of line they seem to get by with it unless the brass in the department decide to make a example on the issue but if they don't want to make an example out of the officer's conduct then its falling on deaf ears.

Until we see the whole video its hard to say who is right and wrong once the video is available it may help to clear the officer or get him into more trouble. There are alot of good officers out there however the few bad ones give all the good ones a bad name.

Just my thoughts

fireant

 

[speedway_navigator]

Cop has to pay $18,000 for arresting firefighter trying to help an accident victim

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=233_1203031330

 

[af5rn]

Among the 400+ children are 53 teen age girls (from 14 through 17), of those, 31 are either pregnant or already have children. Please, the raid was justified.

Nonsense. There was no legal justification. This was a glaring case of "make the bust, and justify it later". Just like when you go kick in a drug dealer's door with no warrant. You know the DA won't take the case because you had no justification. But you don't care because some drug dealer still spends the night in jail and loses half a million dollars in drugs. And, as already stated, there is never any legal consequence for these constitutional violations, so why not? That's exactly what is going on in El Dorado.

 

[andrewccm]

Regardless, I think it was the right thing to do.

You know how they support that compound? They sign up all the people for welfare and sponge from the government (as reported on CNN or MSNBC - can't recall which one I was viewing at the time). Not that this is the reason for a raid, but raping kids most definitely is...and in my opinion, whatever "tip" they had justified it.

Guess I should probably stop with these comments since it's not radio related...It's just that child abuse is not something I take lightly. Impregnating 14yr olds is most definitely abuse.

BTW: I agree that it is done without regard to constitutional violations...and in "this case" I am glad they did....at least from what I know of the case to this point.

 

[MOTORHEAD3902]

And, as already stated, there is never any legal consequence for these constitutional violations, so why not?

Nonsense. Try Googling "1983 Lawsuits". This search term will provide you with an explanation of legal remedies for violations of Constitutional Law under color of authority.

There ARE legal consequences for such violations. Evidently, they haven't been publicized enough where you are.

I'm sorry that Law Enforcement kicks in doors without warrants wherever it is that you are referring to...it's something that isn't done anywhere I'm familiar with, except Hollywood. This is because the term "42 USC 1983" is so toroughly ingrained in police training throughout the United States.

Best wishes, though...


By the way, how far off topic were we going to carry this debate?

 

[hoser147]

Cop has to pay $18,000 for arresting firefighter trying to help an accident victim

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=233_1203031330

That one was covered a while ago......http://www.radioreference.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96662
Hoser

 

[af5rn]

Nonsense. Try Googling "1983 Lawsuits". This search term will provide you with an explanation of legal remedies for violations of Constitutional Law under color of authority.

These "legal remedies" are negligible. It rarely ever affects the officers personally. You don't see hoardes of sacked cops roaming the unemployment lines because of unjustified arrests, despite the fact that thousands occur each day in this country. The city paying out a settlement and the cops actually experiencing consequences are two different things.

You know how they support that compound? They sign up all the people for welfare and sponge from the government (as reported on CNN or MSNBC - can't recall which one I was viewing at the time). Not that this is the reason for a raid, but raping kids most definitely is...and in my opinion, whatever "tip" they had justified it.

Yeah, this is the sme CNN and MSNBC and Fox News that keeps repeating that sex with anyone under 18 years of age is "child rape", which reflects their total ignorance of Texas law. I remember all sorts of BS allegations about Waco that the news media parroted from FBI press conferences that turned out to be BS too. I'm frankly surprised that anybody believes any of this nonsense anymore.

 

[andrewccm]

Please show me the Texas law that states a 50yr old man can legally impregnate a 14yr old child?

Let them have their day in court...But if this is proven to be the case, it is rape (IMHO).

 

[af5rn]

Please show me the Texas law that states a 50yr old man can legally impregnate a 14yr old child?

Actually, if they are legally married, then he can. But that's not the point that I was making. The point is that -- marriage aside -- 18 is not the age of consent in Texas, and it never has been. In fact, 18 is the age of consent in only a small handful of states. The rest range from 14 to 17, with 16 being the most common. So, if they are wrong about this detail of the story, it simply begs the question of what other details they are either mistaken or lying about. Having spent a decade working in the news media myself, I know that you have to take it all with a grain of salt, because accuracy is not what sells newspapers or advertising time.

And I'm afraid I'll never be on-board with the "ends justify the means" theory of criminal justice. If we accept the authorities violating the law in pursuit of law breakers, then we and the authorities are no better than the criminals. But, because for so long they have had to face no consequences for their criminal actions, they will continue to do so with impunity. Will you be their next victim?

 

[andrewccm]

Completely understand. I am guessing that a key part of the puzzle here is whether they are being forced to marry/"consent".

Regardless, I know what you're saying...take everything with a grain of salt for sure..

 

[MOTORHEAD3902]

These "legal remedies" are negligible. It rarely ever affects the officers personally. You don't see hoardes of sacked cops roaming the unemployment lines because of unjustified arrests, despite the fact that thousands occur each day in this country. The city paying out a settlement and the cops actually experiencing consequences are two different things...

Thousands?
Where does this figure come from? Sources?
How do these remedies "rarely" affect the involved officers? Personal liability is a very real thing under Section 1983 suits. Sources?
For an excellent explanation of Section 1983 civil remedies, as well as 18USC242 criminal remedies, an excellent resource is John Worrall's book Criminal Procedure 2nd ed. published by Pearson Group / Allyn and Bacon 2007.

Not trying to call BS, but just trying to figure out where the "thousands" figure comes from...besides episodes of "Law and Order" and "The Shield"...:roll:
Also, I am not trying to pick on anyone in particular, but when such wild assertions are made, sources make them more credible.

Yep, I'm off topic too....

 

[loumaag]

Please show me the Texas law that states a 50yr old man can legally impregnate a 14yr old child?

And

Actually, if they are legally married, then he can. But that's not the point that I was making. The point is that -- marriage aside -- 18 is not the age of consent in Texas, and it never has been. In fact, 18 is the age of consent in only a small handful of states. The rest range from 14 to 17, with 16 being the most common. So, if they are wrong about this detail of the story, it simply begs the question of what other details they are either mistaken or lying about. Having spent a decade working in the news media myself, I know that you have to take it all with a grain of salt, because accuracy is not what sells newspapers or advertising time.

First they can't be legally married, because a 14 year old cannot marry in the state of TX. Indeed, a person can marry in the state of TX if they are 16 with parental permission. Under 16, they cannot marry at all.

That part taken care of, according to the state code in Texas, basically the age of consent in TX is 17. If either party is below the age of 17, it is a crime; however, a defense can be mounted if the sexual conduct is between people of the opposite sex and there is no more than 3 years difference in the ages. So, with that said, I guess if you are 50 yrs old, you can't have sex with a 14 year old.

I guess maybe the news hounds don't have it wrong. Maybe you were confusing TX law with those in California or Iraq. (Based on your published locations.) :roll:

Edit: Yeah, I realize that I am off topic also, so this is the last I will have to comment on this off topic point.

 

[Russell]

Soooooooo, what's going on with the storm chaser and Crane County's bully?

 

[andrewccm]

LOL - I was just about to post the same thing... heh

 

[af5rn]

AndFirst they can't be legally married, because a 14 year old cannot marry in the state of TX. Indeed, a person can marry in the state of TX if they are 16 with parental permission. Under 16, they cannot marry at all.

I guess that might be relevant if Texas were the only state in the nation.

That part taken care of, according to the state code in Texas, basically the age of consent in TX is 17. If either party is below the age of 17, it is a crime; however, a defense can be mounted if the sexual conduct is between people of the opposite sex and there is no more than 3 years difference in the ages. So, with that said, I guess if you are 50 yrs old, you can't have sex with a 14 year old.

I guess maybe the news hounds don't have it wrong. Maybe you were confusing TX law with those in California or Iraq. (Based on your published locations.) :roll:

Texas has to recognise legal marriages from other jurisdictions. Other jurisdictions do allow marriage at 14. And 17 and 18 are not the same thing. Therefore, you and the news media are still mistaken on both counts.

For an excellent explanation of Section 1983 civil remedies, as well as 18USC242 criminal remedies, an excellent resource is John Worrall's book Criminal Procedure 2nd ed. published by Pearson Group / Allyn and Bacon 2007.

You are talking about the legal remedies allowed by law. I am talking about what actually happens in the real world. The fact is that it is extremely rare for law enforcement to suffer these remedies as a result of bogus arrest, search, or seizure practices, regardless of what can theoretically happen.

 

[JoeyC]

Texas has to recognise legal marriages from other jurisdictions. Other jurisdictions do allow marriage at 14. And 17 and 18 are not the same thing. Therefore, you and the news media are still mistaken on both counts.

Sorry, they don't. If a 50 year old man LEGALLY marries a 14 yr old in whatever jurisdiction you speak of, and moves to Texas and has sex with the 14 year old, he is NOT protected by the fact that he is married in some other jurisdiction. He's STILL breaking Texas law and will face the consequences regardless. :roll:

 

[loumaag]

Let's not continue this off topic stuff. Return to the topic of Mr. Barnes and his arrest, leave the FDLS and associated OT comments for the wasteland.