Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Video Analysis: McKinney Brawl Another Rush to Misjudgment?

Video Analysis: McKinney Brawl Another Rush to Misjudgment?

Initial political-media narrative does not withstand scrutiny.

If you hadn’t already heard the internet roar, there is outrage brewing at the use-of-force by police in McKinney, Texas.

The biggest driver of outrage appears to be a ~13 minute cell phone video.

Here’s that video in its entirety, but I call out specific relevant portions below if you don’t want to sit through the whole thing:

I watched the video expectantly for the claimed police misconduct.

One would think from Twitter comments regarding McKinney that the police dropped uninvited onto a placid pool party of little children to wreak havoc on the festivities.

Is that what really happened?  Is that even vaguely credible?

Nah.

So what DID happen?

Much insight can be found from the reporting of Breitbart reporter Bob Price in his post Video Emerges Of Violence At ‘Innocent Pool Party’ In Mckinney, Texas. I encourage you to read the whole thing, as they say, and I’ll just touch on some key points here that shed considerable context on the events in McKinney.  (Then I’ll come back to the video above.)

Price reports that far from the police dropping onto a placid children’s pool party, the neighborhood pool in the McKinney subdivision was the scene of violence before the police were ever on the scene–indeed, that violence was why the police were called in the first place.

Here’s a brief video clip of one such violent event (note: at one point the camera is turned 90 degrees–I used video software to re-rotate it):

Indeed, the situation at the McKinney pool had grown completely out of control. Vast numbers of the mob trying to gain access to the pool were not invitees of the neighborhood residents, but rather were responding to postings made on various social media outlets.

McKinney pool poster

Those who were not invited guests were rightfully denied access by the pool management, and many of these refused to comply with this lawful denial of access.

Of those denied access, some number began to scale the fence surrounding the pool, thus affirmatively becoming illegal trespassers subject to arrest.

Combine that existing violent environment with scores of trespassers who refused to comply with even the simplest police orders, such as to disperse or sit down, and the potential for a tragic loss of innocent live becomes evident.

Bryan Gestner, quoted extensively in the Breitbart piece (my source for this quote) as a witness of the events, posted to Facebook:

This was a Twitter party that turned into a mob event. Jumping pool fence. Assaulting 2 security guards, attacking a mother with three little girls. The video doesn’t show everything. This isn’t about race. This is about outside kids invading our neighborhood and had no respect for authority or the residents here. I have a target on my back now and I have been threatened by these punks that they are gonna shoot up my house when all I did was try to control the mob and actually tended to the girl and the boy that had a bloody lip. Yall don’t know the whole story. I commend the officer for handling this situation.

Gestner also reports that the the purported children at the purported pool party were drinking alcohol and “smoking weed,” and also that some of the mob returned to McKinney the following night (Saturday), at which time they were “kicking in people’s front door, stole a truck and crashed it into many vehicles. They vandalized dozens of cars and were stealing things.”

So, that’s some of the context into which the police found themselves immersed when they were dispatched to the scene in response to resident 911 calls.

Doesn’t much sound like simply some children having a pool party, does it?

In any case, let’s begin taking peeks at the video and see what we can see.

Note that already at the start of the video the mob has been ordered to disperse and leave the area. This is, of course, a perfectly lawful order by the handful of police on scene who are having to deal with crowd–at least some of whom are reportedly violent, drunk and/or stoned.  The first thing they need to do is establish the security of the scene, and that’s best done by dispersing the mob that has led to the disorder in the first place.

The video noted above begins with the police in pursuit of some unseen person, beginning with Officer Eric Casebolt, who appears to trip.  Officer Casebolt will soon become the central focus of the video.

Knowing that patrol officers typically are carrying as much as 30 pounds of gear on their belts, I can assure you that they do not engage in a high-speed foot pursuit unless there’s a darned good reason.  In any case, a foot pursuit is not unlawful police conduct.

You’ll notice that despite having been lawfully ordered to disperse, much of the ground group has refused to do so, and are still milling about the area. With verbal orders to disperse having failed to achieve the goal of improving the safety of the scene, the police next escalate to the next step of the force continuum, which is to simply order the crowd members to sit in place.

Some members of the crowd comply with this order to take a seat.  Others again refuse to comply, thus authorizing the police to escalate to the next step of the force continuum, which is to use non-deadly physical force to compel compliance.  Casebolt also uses stern language.

None of this is unlawful police conduct.

Casebolt then again tells a group of girls standing on the sidewalk to disperse.  Again, they refuse to comply with this lawful order.  In fact, they’ll remain pretty much right there throughout the entirety of the video.

Notably, one of those girls is Dajerria Becton, wearing a bright orange/yellow bathing suit.  She’ll become the center of interest for those claiming police misconduct.

Bectom actually casually steps away from her group, stands in the midst of the crowd members just ordered to sit on the ground by police, shouts to friends across the street, and then wanders off the left side of the screen, apparently towards those friends.

She essentially acts no differently than would a person who is not in the midsts of a police action.

Regardless, at this point she’s doing fine.  Her group had been ordered to disperse, and it looks like she’s doing just that.

Unfortunately, less than one minute later Bectom’s back with her group, and still non-compliant with lawful police orders to disperse, as you can see in the background here.

Casebolt, who had previously ordered the girls to disperse, repeats his orders.  A portion of the group does disperse off to the left.  Bectom appears to be dispersing off to the right, but in fact never moves more than 10 or so feet away, stopping at that point to continue engaging with other members of the non-compliant crowd.

At this point Casebolt notes that Bectom has refused to comply with multiple lawful orders to disperse.  These multiple efforts to encourage compliance with verbal commands having proven ineffective, he appropriately increases his use of force to physically compel compliance.

It is this portion of the video that the Progressive left appears to find most mind-blowing.

The only explanation for this is that they are so entirely ignorant of the role of police in society that they don’t understand that the police are authorized by that society to use force to compel compliance with lawful orders.

And while many, even those who typically support the police, may find observing a uniformed officer use physical force on a non-compliant bikini girl, the fact that a use of force may appear distasteful does not make that use of force unlawful.

In fact, Casebolt is entirely within the law in his use of non-deadly force to compel compliance with lawful commands.

And Bectom is entirely outside the law in her immediate and sustained physical resistance to the officer’s lawful use of force.  She is, literally, committing a crime in doing so.

At this point the members of the Bectom’s crowd that had dispersed rushes back to the scene. Indeed several actually lean over the officer as he is attempting to lawfully subdue Bectom.

It is not a good idea to lean over an officer when he’s trying to subdue your friend.  He’s likely to perceive it as a threat and urge you to stop.  And, indeed, in this case Casebolt shoves the encroaching girls back.

Now THIS is where things get interesting.  A girl in a bathing suit can perhaps be dealt with by a physical push.  But what if others escalate the threat to the officer?

At this point in the video, however, while Casebolt is still trying to lawfully subdue the still resisting Bectom he is rushed by two males who are at least the officer’s size.  The video shows no other officers in the immediate vicinity. The two males can be seen first on the right side of the screen, one wearing an aqua-colored ball cap, the other holding an aqua-colored shirt.

Even absent the remaining crowd (which is, of course, relevant, as mobs are dangerous), the mere fact that Casebolt is being charged by two males his size creates a disparity of force situation that justifies him in escalating his use of force to the deadly force level.

Indeed, the deliberate conduct of these two males in placing Casebolt in reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm constitutes an aggravated assault on a police officer.  This is a felony in all states, and in most is punishable by as much as 15 years in prison.

It is at this point, struggling to subdue a non-compliant suspect, facing two younger males rushing at him from the flank, that Casebolt reasonably perceives a potentially deadly force attack and goes to his pistol.

The two male attackers see the gun, and turn and flee. Casebolt neither shoots nor pursues, but other officers responding to the scene do initiate a pursuit and capture at least one of the attackers.

All of this is perfectly lawful conduct by Casebolt under the totality of the circumstances, and well within both his training and the law.

My advice? If you don’t want a cop to point his pistol at you, don’t rush him while he’s subduing a suspect.

Period.

Indeed, the two male attackers should count themselves fortunate that Casebolt was so slow on the trigger. With his attackers at that close proximity he would have been entirely warranted in shooting them both.

At this point Casebolt returns to Bectom, who initially continues to refuse to comply with both verbal lawful orders and physical efforts to compel her compliance.

For the remainder of the video the females who had accompanied the now compliant Bectom (better late than never, I guess) continue to refuse to comply with lawful orders to disperse, and continue to hurl verbal abuse at the officers, despite their continued orders to leave the area.  The officers do not respond to the abuse.

Reports are that Casebolt is currently on administrative leave (not suspension) with pay (essentially a paid vacation) while internal affairs investigates the justification for his escalation to deadly force defense.  Casebolt met with investigators earlier today.  Such an administrative leave and investigation is common in many departments when an officer draws his sidearm, and is not any indication that his department believes that Casebolt acted wrongfully.

Heck this video alone all but ensures that his decision in going to his gun, as well as his use of non-deadly force on non-compliant suspects, will be deemed justified.

In a nutshell then:

Unlawful acts by the Casebolt?

  • None

Unlawful acts by the various members of the crowd?

  • Refusal to comply with lawful police orders, by the whole non-compliant mob.
  • Resisting, by Dajerria Bectom
  • Simple assault, by Bectom’s friend who encroached on Casebolt subduing Bectom
  • Aggravated assault, by each of the males who rushed at the officer while he was subduing Bectom

That’s about it for now. We will, of course, keep you advised as new facts (and falsehoods) emerge.

–-Andrew, @LawSelfDefense


NEW! The Law of Self Defense proudly announces the launch of its online, on-demand state-specific Law of Self Defense Online Training.  These are interactive, online versions of the authoritative 5-hour-long state-specific Law of Self Defense Seminars that we give all over the country, but from the convenience of your laptop, tablet, or smartphone, and on your own schedule.  Click over for more information on our state-specific Law of Self Defense Online Training, and get access to the ~30 minute Section 1. Introduction for free.

Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and the author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” available at the Law of Self Defense blog (autographed copies available) and Amazon.com (paperback and Kindle). He also holds Law of Self Defense Seminars around the country, and provides free online self-defense law video lectures at the Law of Self Defense Institute and podcasts through iTunes, Stitcher, and elsewhere.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

The left appears to want police to hide behind their patrol cars and give the thugs room to destroy. Like Baltimore.

    n.n in reply to Sanddog. | June 8, 2015 at 10:35 pm

    Their intention is to provoke police officers and intimidate the general public. Anarchists serve to establish left-wing regimes in the midst of a manufactured chaos.

      Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to n.n. | June 9, 2015 at 9:56 am

      Hey now!

      How else you expect the most racist President Evah to get a 3rd term????

      gwsjr425 in reply to n.n. | June 9, 2015 at 3:40 pm

      “manufactured” THAT is exactly the word for it. Create chaos from nothing and then make an issue of it. The left does that with every issue, especially the social ones.

    Estragon in reply to Sanddog. | June 9, 2015 at 12:48 am

    The most disheartening thing about this incident is the willingness of so many self-described “conservatives” and “libertarians” to condemn the police on the basis of a few seconds of video. They should be ashamed of themselves.

    The second most disheartening thing is McKinney PD’s rush to suspend the officer without an investigation, apparently solely on the basis of the clip.

    – –

    And third is the defiance of both private property rights and lawful police orders by teenagers. Who raises these punks? They are budding criminals. And the leftist scum who defend them EVEN AFTER black residents posted the truth and sided with the police.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Estragon. | June 9, 2015 at 2:43 am

      “Who raises these punks?”

      The simple answer is no one really, because a child who was actually parented would not have behaved this way.

      Though I do think the officer would have been better off staying a bit calmer, the only thing I can say that I would have done differently is that I wouldn’t have left the kids I had setting on the ground and engaged that small group of girls, even though he was perfectly ok doing so, I just would have watched them and called for more officers or asked one of the other officers to get them to disperse.

      But then again I think he left a perfectly good rear end chewing that he was giving the boys on the ground that they sorely needed.

      Now all of that said, I wasn’t there and really have no right to call into question his actions.

So, let me get this straight. Right before this video starts, you allege an order to disburse was given. At between 0:35 and 1:10, we see two things: First, an officer explaining calmly to several kids why they shouldn’t have run away (despite your allegation of an order to disburse) with those kids calmly trying to explain why there there and what they say. Second, another officer come through and grab these kids clearly engaged with a calm conversation with the first officer and throw them to the ground, stating “I told you to stay, get your asses down on the ground.”

At what point between the beginning of the video, and marker 0:35 (where these kids and the first officer are already engaged in a civil conversation), did the order for everyone to “sit down” occur, and how did such a general order only apply to the young black males?

    Did I write there was an order to “disburse”? 🙂

    Do you mean “disperse”?

    Cops were called to the site of a violent, drunken, stoned mob. There were people they wanted to talk to, because suspects of unlawful conduct, others they wanted to simply walk away. Each person needed to do what officers told them. To many declined to do so.

    Also, not every officer sees every facet of a violent, drunken, stoned mob. Casebolt may well have had information/observations that led him to be more forceful with the crowd than the officer you’re so fond of.

    And I never wrote that there was some general order for the mob to sit down, now you’re just making stuff up. 🙂

    Cops don’t WANT to have to deal with people not engaged in unlawful conduct, why they first gave everyone the chance to DISPERSE. 🙂 Those that were seen refusing to disperse were ordered to sit–they were now in violation of lawful police orders, and explicitly non-compliant with those orders.

    Pressing someone on the shoulder to encourage a person (ALREADY non-compliant with an order to disperse) to comply with a lawful order to sit down is NOT “throwing children to the ground,” you silly goose. 🙂

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDfense

      Awing1 in reply to Andrew Branca. | June 8, 2015 at 10:01 pm

      >Cops were called to the site of a violent, drunken, stoned mob.

      I specifically focused on facts available from the video.

      >There were people they wanted to talk to, because suspects of unlawful conduct, others they wanted to simply walk away. Each person needed to do what officers told them. To many declined to do so.

      “Because suspects of unlawful conduct … what? Was there more to that? (Sorry, but if you’re going to be an arse about typographical errors, so will I). More importantly, you specifically said these people were ignoring an order to disperse, and that’s why they were ordered to sit on the ground. That’s your language:

      >>You’ll notice that despite having been lawfully ordered to disperse, much of the ground has refused to do so, and are still milling about the area. With verbal orders to disperse having failed to achieve the goal of improving the safety of the scene, the police next escalate to the next step of the force continuum, which is to simply order the crowd members to sit in place.

      You said this, despite the fact that in the very video you linked to, the officer is admonishing these kids for having moved, and that’s explicitly why he’s telling them to sit.

      >Also, not every officer sees every facet of a violent, drunken, stoned mob. Casebolt may well have had information/observations that led him to be more forceful with the crowd than the officer you’re so fond of.

      That’s true, and completely irrelevant to my comment, just like your initial attempt to color the view of other readers by arguing effectively that I’m wrong about my criticisms of your analysis because these are bad people, and by saying you’re wrong, I’m siding with them.

      >And I never wrote that there was some general order for the mob to sit down, now you’re just making stuff up.

      You said there was an order for those that hadn’t dispersed to sit, which is completely consistent with what I said.

      >Cops don’t WANT to have to deal with people not engaged in unlawful conduct, why they first gave everyone the chance to DISPERSE. 🙂 Those that were seen refusing to disperse were ordered to sit–they were now in violation of lawful police orders, and explicitly non-compliant with those orders.

      So, those that were talking to the other officer calmly were in violation of lawful police orders by listening to the second officer? It’s not an impossible scenario, but here?

      >Pressing someone on the shoulder to encourage a person (ALREADY non-compliant with an order to disperse) to comply with a lawful order to sit down is NOT “throwing children to the ground,” you silly goose. 🙂

      Anyone who wants to see how much bull Branca is spreading now, just play the second clip. What the officer is doing to that first individual is what he calls “pressing someone on the shoulder”.

        Good God, you’re tiresome. No offense.

        Sorry, that’s all of my time you get tonight.

        Unless you want to arrange a retainer? 🙂

        –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

          Awing1 in reply to Andrew Branca. | June 8, 2015 at 10:16 pm

          -You said the officer in the second clip was ordering those kids to sit because they refused to move when told to disperse.

          -The officer in the second clip says he’s doing it because they moved (including the ones that were having a calm discussion with another officer, a discussion you conveniently cut out).

          I’d imagine its tiring trying to reconcile that.

        Char Char Binks in reply to Awing1. | June 8, 2015 at 10:30 pm

        The people being detained for questioning or arrest needed to STAY, and the rest needed to DISPERSE, or risk being detained, at which point they would need to STAY. Is that really so hard to understand?

          Except Branco says:

          “You’ll notice that despite having been lawfully ordered to disperse, much of the ground has refused to do so, and are still milling about the area. With verbal orders to disperse having failed to achieve the goal of improving the safety of the scene, the police next escalate to the next step of the force continuum, which is to simply order the crowd members to sit in place.”

          He says, unambiguously, that the officer is ordering these people to sit in place because they failed to disperse. This despite the fact the officer says he’s doing it because they moved.

          Ragspierre in reply to Char Char Binks. | June 8, 2015 at 10:52 pm

          Awning, you’re an asshole.

          You should try sometime to deal with a mob of inebriated, bullet-proof senior teens who are trying to show what big balls they have.

          Or anybody with balls. Or who think they have balls.

          Char Char Binks in reply to Char Char Binks. | June 8, 2015 at 10:57 pm

          If ordered to disperse, they are supposed to LEAVE. Once ordered to sit IN PLACE, they’re not supposed to MOVE.

          You can call me an asshole all you want Rags, it’s not going to change the fact that Branco made clearly false statements (nor will it change the fact that I have dealt with crowds of drunken and bullet-proof teens, as an EMT working “Brock-the-Port” in upstate New York. I was never tempted to throw any of them to the ground while they were talking calmly to a police officer or one of my colleagues).

          Ragspierre in reply to Char Char Binks. | June 8, 2015 at 11:17 pm

          Oh. OK, asshole.

          I’m an Air Vice-Marshal in the Royal Air Force.

          See, on the Internet, you can make any claim…no matter how stupidly far-fetched.

          Like you.

        Dispurse would be a typo. Disburse is another word that you used incorrectly. Whining about being corrected when you’re in the act of correcting someone doesn’t help your credibility.

          Awing1 in reply to windbag. | June 8, 2015 at 10:48 pm

          It’s a typo in the same way Branco failing to finish his statement was a typo. I’m sure he knows how to complete sentences, just as I know the difference between disburse and disperse.

          nordic_prince in reply to windbag. | June 9, 2015 at 11:55 am

          Constantly making the same mistake (“disburse” rather than “disperse,” “Branco” rather than “Branca”) is not the result of typographical errors. More likely sloppiness, laziness, or indifference; in Awing1’s case, probably a combination of all three, I would venture to guess ~

        Sanddog in reply to Awing1. | June 8, 2015 at 10:50 pm

        You’ve obvious never had to deal with an angry, drunk or non-compliant crowd. When you’re outnumbered, you have to control the crowd. If that means pushing someone to the ground, that’s exactly what you do. If that means drawing your firearm because you’re being pushed by people on one side and rushed by people on the other, that’s exactly what you do.

        You have no idea how damned fast things can go sideways in a crowd like that. The police don’t have the option of cowering and hiding. They are paid to deal with the situation as it is. No one was seriously injured, no one died. Kudos to the cops.

          Awing1 in reply to Sanddog. | June 8, 2015 at 11:14 pm

          >You’ve obvious never had to deal with an angry, drunk or non-compliant crowd.

          I actually have, but go on

          >When you’re outnumbered, you have to control the crowd. If that means pushing someone to the ground, that’s exactly what you do.

          As what, a scare tactic? Push a few kids calmly talking to an officer or another colleague down to the ground, and the rest will fall in line?

          > If that means drawing your firearm because you’re being pushed by people on one side and rushed by people on the other, that’s exactly what you do.

          Idk, I’ve never been in a crowd while possessing a firearm, I just had an EMS go-bag.

          >You have no idea how damned fast things can go sideways in a crowd like that.

          Again, I do, you’re simply wrong here.

          >The police don’t have the option of cowering and hiding. They are paid to deal with the situation as it is. No one was seriously injured, no one died. Kudos to the cops.

          They don’t have the option of cowering and hiding, no question there. However, is your standard really that low? If no one is seriously injured or dies, the cops did a good job? That’s how you hand-wave incidents like this away?

          That’s just shameful.

          Sanddog in reply to Sanddog. | June 8, 2015 at 11:17 pm

          EMS? Oh now I get it. You’re used to people being happy to see you… people who are more than willing to comply with your directives.

          You don’t know jack shit, as I suspected. Your little eyes tear up at the thought of someone getting a little bruise… except cops of course.

          Awing1 in reply to Sanddog. | June 8, 2015 at 11:22 pm

          Piling on the personal attacks, you can’t even make factually accurate arguments ad hominem, but I’m sure the arguments you’re keeping in your arsenal to defend this post from my counterarguments are really gonna blow us all out of the water.

          Shane in reply to Sanddog. | June 9, 2015 at 1:00 pm

          EMS really? Were there cops there? Bet there were, and why would you be dealing with the crowd and not delivering Emergency Medical Services. Really, who is the liar here?

          I am with Sanddog, crowds can go sideways … fast, and when that happens lots of people get hurt. That your single experience (which I don’t believe) didn’t deliver that lesson to you says a lot about you.

    Hey, I posted the entire video.

    Why don’t YOU show ME the unlawful conduct by the police?

    Sure. I’ll wait. 🙂

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      Awing1 in reply to Andrew Branca. | June 8, 2015 at 10:10 pm

      I can’t know what secrets lay in the mind of the officer, you’ll always be able to make up something (no matter how unlikely) that could have happened off camera and informed the officer’s decision to use physical force against kids calmly having a discussion with another officer. Who knows, maybe that kid that was pulled down had a bazooka hidden in his shirt that we couldn’t see when we saw him just a few second prior that was dropped off camera that he dropped off camera as he was pulled down.

      I’ll stick with pointing out your clear, indisputable inaccuracies.

        It’s a 10-hour minimum non-refundable retainer at $450/hour. You know math?

        Send to:

        Attorney Andrew Branca
        Law of Self Defense
        P.O. Box 312
        Maynard MA 01754

        When your check clears we can talk further. 🙂

        –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

          Merlin01 in reply to Andrew Branca. | June 8, 2015 at 10:27 pm

          It would be much cheaper to buy the book! =)

          Awing1 in reply to Andrew Branca. | June 8, 2015 at 10:36 pm

          It takes you ten hours to figure out why you’re right to say the officer is ordering kids to the ground as an escalation after they disobeyed a command to disperse when the officer himself quite explicitly says he’s doing it because they tried to leave?

          It didn’t take me 10 hours to figure out it’s because you’re wrong, didn’t even need to employ my legal education for that one.

          Ragspierre in reply to Andrew Branca. | June 8, 2015 at 10:48 pm

          Awning is an obdurate idiot.

          There are two very different groups and a lot of confusion.

          One group has been ordered to sit down to allow the officers to conduct an investigation.

          A second ground has been told to go across the street, partly to calm things. In the midst of this, there is a LOT of noise, and potentially conflicting-sounding orders.

          Things that ARE apparent are…

          1. people flee from police when their numbers are large enough, despite being told to stop

          2. people refuse to move across the street when ordered

          3. people who are apprehended resist, and others interfere.

          Awing1 in reply to Andrew Branca. | June 8, 2015 at 11:00 pm

          Rags, can you kindly point to me what second marker on the raw video, between 0:30 when members of the “one group” who are talking calmly with an officer in a compliant manner and 0:41 when another officer throws several of those same kids to the ground and states “I told you to stay, get your asses down on the ground” where you think this first order to get on the ground was given? Was it before the officer they were talking to engaged them in conversation, or after?

          Ragspierre in reply to Andrew Branca. | June 8, 2015 at 11:10 pm

          No, and I won’t try, you moron.

          You are tunnel-visioning on ONE tape of a FRACTION of an event.

          You are ALSO playing gnat-straining word-games with Branca’s write-up, typical of Collectivist trolls.

          Go bang yourself. IF you can manage. You put your right hand in, you pull your right hand out…

          Caughtya in reply to Andrew Branca. | June 9, 2015 at 4:11 pm

          LOL @ 10 hour retainer at $450 per hour. Sir, I think I will pass, it appears to me the way you pass judgement you aren’t worth the price of your book per hour.

          I will be skipping the book too.

          Mom? Is that YOU? 🙂

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

        Char Char Binks in reply to Awing1. | June 8, 2015 at 10:31 pm

        If it happened off camera, did it really happen?

        Awing1 in reply to Awing1. | June 8, 2015 at 11:17 pm

        Rags: “What? Back up my statements about what I claim to have seen on a video clearly visible on this page by typing out four characters? Far too hard, I’ll just make a masturbation joke, claim those challenging the narrative of the post have tunnel vision and that typing and posting those four characters would be too hard, despite being considerably easier than typing the response I’ve written in its stead.”

        Real credible right there.

          Cleetus in reply to Awing1. | June 9, 2015 at 7:49 am

          Awing, one of the worst aspect of the internet is how people who know so little read an article or two and suddenly they think of themselves as experts. I see this with high school graduates telling Ph.D. scientists that the scientists knows nothing about science while they themselves know all. It is laughable and the real fool is the high school graduate because they are so ignorant of what they don’t know that you cannot convince them of anything for they think themselves superior in every way.
          >
          Mow I watch you argue with a reputable lawyer who has years of experience. Having been involved in law enforcement for years I can see how his points are dead on correct and your points are nit picking trivia that are characteristic of ignorant people who gain their expertise by reading an article or two.
          >
          What you represent is a lack of respect for those who know so much more than you. Yes, arguing points is fine, but at some point you need to drop it and admit defeat, But you don’t because you know it all and this action is the same action the kids in the video are taking. They know more than the police, they have more rights than the police and so forth which makes people like you more a part of the problem than the solution. Mark Twain once said “It is better to be thought a fool than you open your mouth and remove all doubt.” You, sir, have removed all doubt.

        Shane in reply to Awing1. | June 9, 2015 at 1:03 pm

        It is a lot easier to understand someone when you have walked a mile in their moccasins. Clearly you don’t even have the parallels in your own life experience to give the benefit of the doubt and you are too intellectually lazy to put yourself in the officers shoes, or even any of the people that were in the video’s shoes so that you could more fully understand what was taking place.

        Shane in reply to Awing1. | June 9, 2015 at 1:06 pm

        Just so it is clear Awing1 2 kids don’t need bazooka’s to beat down a cop and take his gun. Just need the two things hanging off of the ends of their arms that are in clear sight. Add a group of harrying girls and you have a recipe for a dead cop (or dead kids if the other officers can respond quickly enough).

As always, an excellent write up.

I am so tired of this garbage…

I have three words of advice that would keep this from ever happening!

Comply, Comply, Comply!

    DINORightMarie in reply to Merlin01. | June 9, 2015 at 7:23 am

    Compliance seems to be a word none of these teens (or those in recent incidents) knows the meaning of – and their behavior, their disregard for the authorities reflects that.

      They don’t comply with the only authority figures in their life, why comply with these. Parenting is hard and when they get older it is even harder.

    JWB in reply to Merlin01. | June 9, 2015 at 7:33 am

    Yes, always comply with law enforcement and never challenge them. Including the IRS and the Milwaukee Prosecutor’s office.

    No, rote compliance is not the answer to a police interaction. Aggressively flanking a cop is not the answer either.

Private property. Invasion. Good intentions.

I wonder if people would be equally sympathetic to a home invasion prompted by an anonymous “citizen” directing an entitled, high-capacity mob.

Is it normal for people to invade private property by ignoring owners and authorized individuals, and circumventing lawful measures to prevent general access?

This reminds me of the “swatting” phenomenon, Wisconsin State fair wilding, and other popular leftist promotions to harass and deny people’s rights on public and private property.

    DINORightMarie in reply to n.n. | June 9, 2015 at 7:39 am

    ….and it reminds me of the flash-mob mass theft (or gate-crashing) of stores, movie theaters, and more in recent years. (There are plenty of examples; these are just two.) And, of course, let’s not forget the many “knock-out game” incidents (which, btw, the left are calling a “myth” on snopes, Mediaite, D-Beast, etc. surprise-NOT!). These types of incidents seems to happen, or increase, when schools are out of session….and of course are broadcast on social media to increase numbers.

    Making matters more volatile and dangerous, the MSM/leftists have now been able to set up the police to a position of weakness, of being assumed guilty until proven innocent.

    This will only get worse this summer, and as 2016 approaches.

The video as I saw it shows very clearly a young man attempting to gain control of Corporal Casebolt’s right (?) arm while he was busy with his left arm trying to subdue the young (resisting) lady.

This is classic cause for the officer to fear for his safety, since control of his right (?) arm is also control of his side arm.

In any case, I thought he was totally justified in drawing his side arm.

    That is the really frightening part of the video. If those two gentlemen (and I use the term loosely) approaching the officer had been even a little unlucky and the officer’s draw of his sidearm had violated the “keep your finger off the trigger” rule, the situation could have gone from a simple CF to a tragedy.

    Worse, if they were within 20 feet, that’s within the ‘Tuller Drill’ range, and if they were actually carrying concealed knives, the officer could not have reacted fast enough to draw and shoot them both before being attacked.

I am really surprised that I seem to be the only person on the entire internet who sees the kid in the blue shirt tugging on the back of his waistband during his confrontation with the cop. Sure, in calm reflection (and from behind) he appears to be pulling his pants up — but from the officer’s vantage point the guy would have appeared to be trying to pull a weapon.

    My best friend is a concealed carry permit holder in Florida and pointed that out to me. I hadn’t seen that part of the video before reading/ watching this post by Branca. I see exactly what you, and my best friend, saw: tugging exactly where a concealed pistol is likely to be.

    Had that motion pulled out a real gun I don’t think there’s any way Officer Casebolt could have responded in time either.

    amwick in reply to tk. | June 9, 2015 at 7:26 am

    Actually this has been pointed out in other places. The second to last video, guy in a blue shirt and tan shorts is right next to the LEO, he had assumed a typical shooting stance with his legs apart and then reaches with his left hand in a motion that sure does resemble someone going for a firearm. I believe the LEO drew his weapon in response, thinking (I am sure) that this guy was carrying. All this takes place in like the first second of that clip. If you change the setting to .25 normal speed it is easier to see.

healthguyfsu | June 8, 2015 at 11:22 pm

It is absolutely maddening to me that “people” like this (using the term loosely) seem to think that police orders are up for discussion and debate.

Shut your overused trap, comply, make sure your compliant actions are clear and deliberate, and sort out any argument you have about the actions later. You do this and you won’t be harmed in any way by the police.

Civilized society degrades when police are forced to escalate their actions to subdue the non-compliant, even an innocent bystander can quickly become part of the problem if they do not stay out of the way.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to healthguyfsu. | June 8, 2015 at 11:30 pm

    Shut your overused trap, comply, make sure your compliant actions are clear and deliberate, and sort out any argument you have about the actions later. You do this and you won’t be harmed in any way by the police

    That’s not the way Martin Luther King and all the Civil Rights protesterss acted in the 1960-1966 period, and that’s probably the precedent they had in mind.

    Martin Luther King is a hero to these people.

    It is absolutely maddening to me that “people” like this (using the term loosely) seem to think that police orders are up for discussion and debate.

    Whether they were right or wrong does indeed depend upon whether or not the underlying orders from the police were justified.

    If the underlying justification doesn’t matter, then was Martin Luther King wrong and Buill Conner right? If it does matter, then you have to argue it.

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | June 8, 2015 at 11:34 pm

      Unless you think they already know they’re wrong.

      But they didn’t.

      Estragon in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | June 9, 2015 at 12:54 am

      You have impressed me in the past as an intelligent poster. But if you don’t see a day-and-night difference between a scheduled protest march in exercise of First Amendment rights and an unruly crowd of belligerent trespassing teenagers, well, I’ve been wrong before.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | June 9, 2015 at 3:01 am

      MLK and his following were protesting to have equal rights, not the right to trespass. They used trespass and generally peaceful civil disobedience as a tool to bring attention to their cause. They weren’t acting with criminal intent.

      That is wholly different than thugs trying to crash a private pool party and trespassing after they have been told to leave. civil rights does not equal just being a bonehead and not following the police commands.

      Frankly you disgrace Dr. King and what he stood form by even making such a ignorant and offensive comparison.

        MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Gremlin1974. | June 9, 2015 at 8:49 am

        And King was very specific, if you break the law expect to go to jail, even if uit’s an unjust law you are protesting.

          Char Char Binks in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | June 9, 2015 at 10:16 am

          One of the major points of civil disobedience is to openly and nonviolently break an unjust law and get arrested for it as part of a protest. The pool partiers were simply trying to get away with breaking the law.

      healthguyfsu in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | June 9, 2015 at 11:23 am

      How did you do with analogies on the SAT?

      Civil disobedience this is not.

      I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt Sammy I am going to think you just don’t see what is up.

      There is a saying … “The time to fight a cop is not on the side of the road”. That is as true as it comes. If the cops are being unlawful or the law is unjust or whatever, you will not get it fixed at the place it occurred.

      We hate lawyers and we despise that there are so many, but who is going to fight for you in the face of the machine that is the “justice” system. Lawyers are hired guns that fight for you. Our society has deemed that this is preferable to lynch mob justice. I agree and you should understand why our society chose this route.

      tom swift in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | June 9, 2015 at 3:58 pm

      Whether they were right or wrong does indeed depend upon whether or not the underlying orders from the police were justified.

      No so. In the phrase “law and order”, the two concepts are not synonyms. “Order” is getting control of a situation (in this case trespassing, morphing into riot). “Law” is sorting it out—who are the perps, who are the victims, who did what to whom, did the police handle things properly when they established control, etc.

      Generally, “order” has to come first.

      All parties, both those actually involved and, these days, anyone else who wants to get his oar in, can argue about the “law” part. Society even provides big rooms with unconfortable seating and rotten acoustics for them to do it in; these are called courtrooms. But this is not true for the “order” part.

      I’m pretty confident that King knew the difference between “civil disobedience” and “rioting”. And that difference is “order”. The police decide to make an arrest? Fine, go along with them; that’s an essential element of civil disobedience. Choose to not go along with them? Fight them there on the street? That’s “rioting”.

    Radegunda in reply to healthguyfsu. | June 9, 2015 at 2:04 am

    I was waiting for a subway train when a couple of guys were causing trouble and acting in a threatening manner. Eventually the police arrived and barked an order, and those two guys instantly threw themselves face-down on the ground. I was impressed by their speedy compliance; the drawn gun(s) may have had something to do with it, but it also seemed they may have been through the routine before.

    Anyway, the trouble stopped and nobody was hurt.

I taught for many years in a high school with a large percentage of African-American students, many of whom were in a lower-socioeconomic state. An angry 14- or 15-year-old Black girl can be a real whirl-wind of trouble, especially when she has her attitude up and is ready to attack. A fight between two Black girls would require between 2 and 4 large men to break up. Two female teachers once tried to break up a fight and both of them received serious injuries. One of those still, 10 years later, suffers from the wound received. (I do not recall ever having White females fighting. White males, yes. In fairness to the race issue, the overwhelming majority of the fights were “stupid-on-stupid”.)

If anything, Officer Casebolt acted with judicious restraint, and deserves praise for handling the situation as well as he did. Andrew is quite right in stating that the two who rushed him are lucky he wasn’t faster on the draw.

Casebolt has a history of racially motivated abuse. Which doesn’t surprise me.His abuse of this black girl isn’t Eric’s 1st racially motivated attack.Backgrounds matter.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/texas-pool-party-sued-2008-accused-abusing-driver-article-1.2251191

    Gremlin1974 in reply to m1. | June 9, 2015 at 3:10 am

    Ohh, look, M1 has shown up to make baseless accusations that are disproven by the very article that he linked to.

    How is the temp. in mom’s basement tonight? I know it gets hot in there when she is drying clothes.

    First, one obviously false complaint that was made by a guy who this officer arrested on drug charges and was dismissed, is not a “history of racially motivated abuse”.

    Also, there is nothing in the article you linked to that even alludes to the officer making a “racially motivated attack” on anyone.

    Now the one thing we agree on is that “Backgrounds matter.” From what you have provided this officers background is a history of being falsely accused of “racial attacks” by someone who thought it would help their case.

    This is along the same lines of saying that Zimmerman is a menace because he keeps being falsely accused of things.

    Ragspierre in reply to m1. | June 9, 2015 at 8:21 am

    The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed after Brown conceded that his incarceration made it impossible to obtain the evidence he would need to defend himself. He also claimed to lack an understanding of the court process.

    The lawsuit was filed the same year Casebolt received a “Patrolman of the Year” award.
    _______________________________________________

    YOU have a history…with another offense here…of risibly FALSE statements, all of them based in race animus.

    Here’s what’s apparent:

    1. Casebolt (and others) arrested a guy on drug charges.

    2. Guy was incarcerated (pled or was found guilty).

    3. Guy can’t even FIND a lawyer in greater Dallas, his case against LEOs is so weak.

    4. Bogus bullshit jailhouse lawsuit collapses.

An allegation of something 7 years ago is HARDLY evidence of anything….[insert rolling eyes!].

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. The left has already got all outrageously outragety over these poor black “children” being racially harassed by the police so I expect we will see more and more social justice warriors clamouring for their supposedly used pound of flesh and 30 pieces of silver!

Mailman

Gremlin1974 | June 9, 2015 at 3:12 am

Does this make anybody else miss the days when we just hung up fliers on telephone poles that said “Pool Party” instead of announcing everything on social media?

    amwick in reply to Gremlin1974. | June 9, 2015 at 8:20 am

    I certainly agree, but this was not a pool at an individual house. It was a private community pool, with HOA rules. This party had no business being organized from the get go. I don’t believe any of the HOA rules were followed, or any of the required fees paid. The party was wrong when it started.

    Elliott in reply to Gremlin1974. | June 9, 2015 at 8:39 am

    They were committing fraud. Fraud against the ticket buyers and the property owners. They sold about a 100 tickets at $15 a pop so that is some level of theft and should be prosecuted.

My leftist friends repeatedly tell me that if everyone smoked weed there wouldn’t be any violence in the world.

I’m seriously starting to doubt that theory.

    healthguyfsu in reply to RKae. | June 9, 2015 at 11:30 am

    You need new friends…preferably ones, that as Mike Rowe would say, can “piss clean”

    Shane in reply to RKae. | June 9, 2015 at 1:21 pm

    It isn’t the weed, it is the weed + the alcohol. Potent combination that. They call it Krunk. If it is possible to try it you should but be VERY sparing on the alcohol, you will see why people seem to go crazy when “all” they did was smoke some weed.

in Houston an HOA had to hire professional management when the retired homeowners who were running it quit. some minority homeowners threw a fit at an HOA meeting, destroyed records and furniture, the police were called. also, these mob parties started on social media are not uncommon. one was stopped by Galveston police when a rental beach house was to be used without renting it. the pattern is publicize, crash, drink, smoke, destroy.

    Elliott in reply to sdharms. | June 9, 2015 at 8:13 am

    This “pool party” was advertised on social media and tickets were sold to use HOA facilities which the ticket sellers do not own, were not authorized to use, and lost control when the ticket buyers were not satisfied with the hot dogs and Kool Aid. They wanted to use the pool, could not get in (they weren’t entitled to do so), climbed the fence, and became violent when told to leave. The ticket seller claims to live there but there is not a record of that in tax records (rental? don’t know the HOA rules because they aren’t members?). Anyway the “pool party” promoter (aged 19 or 20 female) was advertising for “dime girls” to come and for the next big event to be held on Juneteenth in Plano. This person has scrubbed their social media needless to say. So the cops were also trying to figure where these kids came from, why they wouldn’t leave (they paid for tickets to use property belonging to others without authorization which they were unable to comprehend), got mad because they thought they wuz robbed of their $15 ticket money, and did NOT like being told to get the hell out. And the ticket frauds started the social justice claims to cover their tracks. And yes the media are idiots.

      Elliott in reply to Elliott. | June 9, 2015 at 8:18 am

      So instead of exposing frauds who take money from young people for crappy “parties”, the media attacks the residents and cops. Make sense?

        MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Elliott. | June 9, 2015 at 8:58 am

        Until the next time a bunch of partyers show up to a place do $100,000 plus in damage. Then the media will show up and ask why the police weren’t there to stop it.

      Shane in reply to Elliott. | June 9, 2015 at 1:24 pm

      Thank you Elliot, this helps shed a lot of light on what happened.

    Elliott in reply to sdharms. | June 9, 2015 at 10:55 am

    Outside of Houston, in one of the bay communities, a promoter took over the entire town. They used the community beach, without permits, had blaring obscene DJ’s, open selling of drugs and alcohol (also without permits), openly fired guns, overran the local gas stations, convenience stores, pissed and pooped in public, couldn’t find parking so parked in residents yards, driveways, etc. A friend of my wife’s bay home (a small semi-historic 1930’s beach bungalow on pristine acreage) was used as a parking lot and toilet. Planting beds and hard-scape were destroyed. Damage was $80,000. To one home. Lawn, irrigation system, flower beds, flower pots, sidewalks, stone paths, lawn furniture, and part of the fencing were ruined. Her late husband bought and renovated the place for her not long before he died and the bums tore up as much of it as they pleased.

It is not people of color who are suffering at the hands of racists police, it’s the exact opposite. It’s the police who suffer daily at the hands of racist people of color!

    amwick in reply to Merlin01. | June 9, 2015 at 12:12 pm

    Now I am imagining TV action show about modern day sorcerer working “undercover” as LEO! 🙂 *sighs* if only.. 🙂

“My leftist friends repeatedly tell me that if everyone smoked weed there wouldn’t be any violence in the world.”

As someone who uhm… “knows” a chronic user very well, your are correct. Sure, when someone is toked up they can be very chill. But for every action there is a reaction, for every peak there’s a valley.

Chronic users escape from reality and when they come back (ie run out of weed) all the problems and stress they had 7 days ago are still as fresh as yesterday. Very easy to become enraged over the little things when you spend most your time escaping them instead of dealing with them.

So yes, I am not at all surprised when pot users get violent.

    Shane in reply to Fen. | June 9, 2015 at 1:26 pm

    Said this earlier, will say again pot + alcohol is bad news.

    MarlaHughes in reply to Fen. | June 10, 2015 at 1:22 pm

    Then you have the whole issue of the increased usage of a drug known to cause paranoia in it’s users. High= less movement and laziness. However, the activity of the brain continues and trends in a paranoid and perceptually deep directions. Explains Alex Jones and Infowars along with the troubling alliance on the left and right against any authority.

When there is no respect for authority in the schools, then it bleeds into other social interactions. The kids probably thought they didn’t need to do what the cop said because when has that ever mattered ?

    Anonamom in reply to purple. | June 9, 2015 at 12:00 pm

    Exactly right.

    When we lost the academy, I fear that we may have lost the war. EAGnews.com is covering well the “discipline” procedures favored by progressives; if you think that the “youths” are behaving badly now, just brace yourself for the ones we’re paying to raise now.

First, another great job by our resident legal expert, Mr. Branca.

Here is a great link with lots of video and commentary:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/06/08/the-full-story-of-the-mckinney-texas-pool-mob-inside-the-craig-ranch-subdivision/

This is the “Conservative Treehouse” gang, and sometimes they can be somewhat excessive with commentary, but I read it all and the link put it all in perspective.

I think this fiasco would be a great time to have a conversation about race. All young people of all races need to understand that a confrontation with a police officer who is trying to control a riot is not going to end well for either cops or kids.

I would love to see the Reverends and Race Hustlers take a moment to gather all of the relevant facts before rushing to a microphone and complaining about cops and excessive use of force and racism.

It’s my dream and I’m sticking with it . . .

Midwest Rhino | June 9, 2015 at 10:10 am

As pointed out above, when the two beefy, apparently older guys approach the officer as he is apprehending the girl, the one has his hand behind his back.

But he doesn’t seem to be tugging at his pants, it seems to me he is trying to provoke the officer into drawing his gun. He appears to be deliberately displaying an attack posture, a drawing a weapon stance. Then when the officer turns and draws, the punk has his “hands up don’t shoot moment” for social media, and then more national outrage.

As others said, he’s lucky he retreated so quickly, if he had kept the taunting up he might be dead. Or if he’d had a weapon the officer might be dead. But the guy was certainly portraying a stance that would have justified a shoot, except for the last split second retreat perhaps.

The other thing this shows is the folks are not afraid of (allegedly) racist cops shooting them. They instead feel so empowered that they disobey and get in their face, feeling invincible or something. Blacks in particular are inspired to disobey and disrespect cops, thanks to racist SJW’s being given credibility in media.

This is the sort of get out the vote uproar the left loves, especially when Obama/Holder/Sharpton community organize the riots, and mayors or governors “give them space” to riot and loot drugstores. Meanwhile we still wait on facts (or MSM reporting) about Holder’s involvement in the few hundred dead from his Fast and Furious “guns for cartels” program.

    Char Char Binks in reply to Midwest Rhino. | June 9, 2015 at 10:33 am

    I don’t think Blue Shirt took a shooting stance at all, or was trying to get Casebolt to draw. In fact, I doubt he was actually trying to get that close to him. He and Tank Top ran toward the cop to make a SHOW of coming to her aid, but probably no more than that. Blue Shirt seemed to approach Casebolt faster and closer than he meant to, because Tank Top bumped into him and pushed him forward and off balance, probably accidentally, but it was enough for Casebolt to justifiably draw his weapon.

      Elliott in reply to Char Char Binks. | June 9, 2015 at 11:06 am

      I think he is the one the cops caught in the foot chase. And they have video to prosecute him! So the McKinney Police Dept wishes to thank the videographer person for assisting them in the pursuit of criminals.

      Midwest Rhino in reply to Char Char Binks. | June 9, 2015 at 11:42 am

      I should have said “drawing stance” I guess … he was holding his hand behind his back in an odd way. From the front it would look like he might be drawing a weapon. He did it long enough (but not pulling on his pants) that it strikes me as intentional.

      He had no problem with control of his own body … they obviously wanted the cops attention, and intended to interfere. I’m of course only guessing about the intent to goad the cop into drawing his gun.

        Char Char Binks in reply to Midwest Rhino. | June 9, 2015 at 12:43 pm

        Actually, you did more or less say “drawing stance”. I’ve seen other comments online calling it a shooting stance. Still, I think the main thing Office Casebolt saw was two man-size youths, whatever their age, rushing at him from his right rear, and getting within about 10 feet of him, a clear threat.

      CCB, that may be entirely true, but one thing I have learned(mostly from here) is that all that really matters is what Casebolt perceived. It seems to me Casebolt was focused on subduing the young woman, so if he saw blue shirt, it was from his peripheral vision. Blue shirt may have just rushed up, got a nudge and grabbed at his pants, but the video shows clearly that he appeared to be “drawing.” Even if that was not his intention. It would be really interesting to hear LEO Casebolt’s version of events.

      Out of curiosity, what constitutes ‘a shooting stance’ in your opinion?

        amwick in reply to VotingFemale. | June 9, 2015 at 6:47 pm

        I remembered from my class that one is called Weaver and one is called Isosceles. You can look them up to get images. *Can’t believe I actually remembered something*

          Gremlin1974 in reply to amwick. | June 9, 2015 at 8:40 pm

          I think I remember one being called a modified weaver.

          “Weaver,” “Isoscles,” “Modified this” and “Modified that” are useful formalized shooting positions for teaching use of a pistol. I was trained in, and taught many others, all of them.

          No high-level competitive pistol shooter uses any of them. Each finds the position that works best for his physiology. Like any other skilled activity, once a certain level of skill has been achieved it can be productive to begin to “break the rules” here and there for purposes of further excellence. (Never the safety rules, of course, those are sacrosanct.)

          I shoot at the Master class level in IDPA, and if you asked me what shooting position I used I’d have no idea what to tell you. The “Branca” shooting position, I guess. 🙂

          It is often amusing when watching an action movie to see the actors use a highly formalized shooting stance. A very rigid Weaver or Isosceles, for example. You can almost guess which shooting school the studio sent him to to prepare him for the role. 🙂

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

          Gremlin1974 in reply to amwick. | June 9, 2015 at 11:55 pm

          LOL, the Branca Stance!

Prof. Barondes | June 9, 2015 at 10:36 am

I think the above discussion is somewhat difficult to assess without referencing some of the potentially pertinent statutory provisions.

I cannot address any separate, local provision. Nevertheless, the following State statutory provisions may be of interest for those not familiar with Texas law:

Sec. 42.03. OBSTRUCTING HIGHWAY OR OTHER PASSAGEWAY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without legal privilege or authority, he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:

(1) obstructs a highway, street, sidewalk, railway, waterway, elevator, aisle, hallway, entrance, or exit to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access, or any other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles, or conveyances, regardless of the means of creating the obstruction and whether the obstruction arises from his acts alone or from his acts and the acts of others; or

(2) disobeys a reasonable request or order to move issued by a person the actor knows to be or is informed is a peace officer, a fireman, or a person with authority to control the use of the premises:

(A) to prevent obstruction of a highway or any of those areas mentioned in Subdivision (1); or

(B) to maintain public safety by dispersing those gathered in dangerous proximity to a fire, riot, or other hazard.

(b) For purposes of this section, “obstruct” means to render impassable or to render passage unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous.

(c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

***

Sec. 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer’s presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.

(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful….

    Thank you. I was wondering about trespassing myself, since part of this melee was on private property. Then there is the whole issue of whether the party itself met the HOA rules, was selling tickets fraud, etc. This is regular cornucopia of infractions.. Of course there will be civil suits flying all over. SMH

I honestly don’t know why on earth anyone would want to become a police officer anymore. The inmates are running the asylum.

Henry Hawkins | June 9, 2015 at 1:02 pm

This officer should be convicted on charges of exerting Wet Privilege and be suspended with pay for a month during which he should be forced to stay in Hawaii, paid for by the kid charging $15 cover fee to attend this pool party.

theduchessofkitty | June 9, 2015 at 2:37 pm

Every upscale residential development and HOA in TX should know of this by now.

Yes, Cinco Ranch (Katy). Yes, Glennloch Farms (Spring). Yes, The Woodlands. Yes, Friendswood. They are going to make a mess of McKinney, and after they’re done there, you’re next.

Forewarned = Forearmed. Prepare accordingly.

I’ll just make this quick drive-by observation…

1. Think about “Spring Break” behavior. Isn’t this precisely what you expect?

2. This kind of behavior is NOT racial. Every race is represented in the typical “Spring Break” orgy.

3. This isn’t behavior that is limited to poorly raised kids. I’m sure they are over-represented, but young, stupid, and drunk is exhibited everywhere. Think Chris Kyle before he grew up and was riding the rodeo circuit for “buckle bunnies”.

McKinney Texas is a largelya white suburban city. Based on discussions I have had with two residents of the neighborhood, This particular enclave of Mckinney is very much a melting pot with approx 1/3 white, 1/3 black 1/3 a mixture of asian, indian hispanic. There is a very high percentage of mixed race couples. Very little, if any, of the “Attitude” which pervades in some racially charged conmmunities exists in mcKinney. Many of the belligerents were from areas up to 20 miles away.

How much more evidence does the American people need to realize that the biggest threat to the Republic is the media?

Seems ‘Awing1’ may have lost his trolling privileges.

Awww…

    If so, wasn’t my doing.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      I believe that, Andrew. Usually, only the blog owner has that power.

      Awing1 was off his meds, obviously, and digging himself a deeper hole with each comment.

        amwick in reply to VotingFemale. | June 9, 2015 at 6:54 pm

        For Pete’s sake, you don’t walk into someone’s house and poop on the carpet. Even if you disagree. And never, ever, ever, argue with a lawyer. Arguing is the way they earn their daily bread, so to speak. Unless you are another lawyer, then have at it. 🙂 IMHO.

I #StandWithCasebolt … and #BlameTheTeens
… buckle your seatbelts USA…

you have at LEAST 2 more years of this utter MADNESS until the commies are run out of the White House…

#TrickleDownEffect
#LeftWantsChaos…

yeah, I know, I’m “twittering” because I’m fighting for truth on the twitters… the leftist IDIOCY abounds

If the two young men who charged the cop had been white they both would have been shot.

Amazing to see these race activists claiming the officer never should have pulled out his gun because the black boys were unarmed. A white who claimed that he must be allowed to engage in threatening actions with impunity would be charged to the max on the grounds that he was showing no remorse and was recalcitrant about his criminal behavior.

For those wondering why it says 119 comments but shows only 2, click here. There should be an “older comments” link, but it doesn’t show.

This whole thing is unfortunate.

To my fellow white liberals who are insisting that the out-of-control police officer (who should be fired, sorry – I don’t want cops who can’t manage their own anger) flipped his lid at these teenagers for No Reason At All, may I suggest you read this book?

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Make-Black-Kids-Angry/dp/1508585024/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1433962882&sr=1-1&keywords=don%27t+make+the+black+kids+angry

Not everyone likes to have fun the way that boring uptight white people like to have fun, and it would do liberal white people well to realize that. Sipping wine and discussing artisinal cheeses is simply *not* some folk’s idea of a good time. Some people have a much more…chaotic notion of what fun is and they act on it accordingly. The fence-jumping and the fights were not incidental to this pool party: they were part of the plan.

What can be done to help this ex officer who did nothing wrong?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend