There is an extraordinary case out of Texas involving a mother who was reportedly arrested for simply asking to see a warrant before police could enter her home to arrest her son. What is most remarkable to this story is that the family’s lawyer told the media that the Slaton Police Department was only willing to apologize if the family waived any right to sue it for the unlawful and abusive arrest. That demand alone, if true, should result in the immediate termination of the police chief as well as the disciplining of any prosecutor who conveyed the demand in my view. Citizens should not have to trade away legal rights to receive an apology for allegedly abusive police conduct.
The mother said that she was aware that there was a criminal complaint made against her 11-year-old son and simply told police “I will release my son to you upon viewing those orders.’ She says that the officer responded:
“He said, ‘This is how you want to play?’ He took two steps back, turned around to the officer and said, ‘Take her.’ They turned me around, handcuffed me, and took me in.”
She spent the night in jail and police left the boy at the house. He was never arrested. Her lawyer says that it turns out that there was no warrant since the encounter occurred on May 29 but the directive to apprehend was not signed until May 30.
They are considering litigation and I cannot imagine why they would not sue based on these facts.
The police website pledges to “Preserve for all citizens, the rights guaranteed by the U.S. and Texas Constitutions.” According to this family, however, that is only if citizens promise first not to sue for the denial of those rights.
36 thoughts on “Texas Police Allegedly Arrest Mother Who Simply Asked To See Warrant Before They Enter Home To Arrest Son”
One of the most lucrative businesses women can be into could be the creation of
accessories. I am not a PC player, please anyone let me
to remove Dell Inspiron password…” We usually hear such inquiry around
us. The Vi – O comes pre set most abundant in widely used
mobile phones, including Blackberry, i – Pod, i – Phone amongst others.
It seems as though Mr. Bill McWilliams, likely a false name, and poorly at that, is a police-state, NWO troll. I guess he is not a fan of German history prior to World War II.
“What is most remarkable to this story is that the family’s lawyer told the media that the Slaton Police Department was only willing to apologize if the family waived any right to sue it for the unlawful and abusive arrest.”
The request for dismissal of charges of unlawful and abusive arrest is a clear cut admission of guilt. It would stand up in any court of law. If only they would press charges and bring it up.
they’re saving that for if/when she sues.
I’m surprised they didn’t charge her with something for leaving her child home alone while they held her.
When people ask why people in the US tolerate these abuses by government thugs, I’ll simply point to people like Bill McWilliams who view agents of the state as angels.
Mr. McWilliams: Isn’t using legal procedures to object when officers act outside their lawful authority necessary to avoid becoming a police state?
People are just looking for an excuse to sue the police — who have a tough job. Why don’t they just move to somewhere where they have a police state — and see how they like THAT.
With cops like this, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO MOVE! Unless the cops are nailed, they already live in a police state.
Catholic priests receive a spiritual trust and are noted as spiritual authorities. LEOs receive a public trust and are noted as legal authorities.
I see a valid comparison here to the travesty of rogue priests and rogue cops. We common folk are expected to respect and “give” a higher regard to the men and women that choose and earn these roles in our society.
I naively state that priests and police should have some type of mission statement of the goals of their profession. They should have a panel of their peers hold them to these Ideals of their profession, and have to defend and be judged and disciplined for actions abusive of and contrary to this higher ethical standard. This sounds simple writing it, thus my use of naively.
The practice of cover up, deceit, lies, and false witness, is “double bad” when authorities ensconced with the public trust are the lying dirtbags.
I see too many similarities between the heirarchys of both professions, willing to protect their lying deceitful immoral dirtbags.
This damages the faith trust and respect of ALL involved.
Openness transparency civil discussion and consequences are necessary components of a free open fair democratic society. .
….. We are equal under Law. Hows that for a Mission statement?
Submitted without further comment . . .
Why is it that so many ignorant cops are giving the good guys a bad name. Regardless as to all of the other criteria (race,etc) this is pure bovine fecal material. Texas does have some honest and trustworthy police officers, can’t say too much about other government entities else where.
“What is most remarkable to this story is that the family’s lawyer told the media that the Slaton Police Department was only willing to apologize if the family waived any right to sue it for the unlawful and abusive arrest. That demand alone, if true, should result in the immediate termination of the police chief as well as the disciplining of any prosecutor who conveyed the demand in my view. Citizens should not have to trade away legal rights to receive an apology for allegedly abusive police tactics.”
Nal thought of the same question that I did. This is to my mind and admission of guilt and as such already proves the case for false, egregious arrest.
Beyond that though this was supposedly and arrest warrant for an 11 year old boy. what parent wouldn’t want to see it? As it turns out the boy still hasn’t been picked up, which indicates that there charges against him might not have been that serious. This is merely the latest in a trend of police abuses and while I think that officers who do this are in the minority, as Randyjet wrote they are protected by the wall of silence from the police who adhere to the law. When will those policemean who believe in the law learn that their silence does them harm and does the laws they are sworn to enforce harm also?
So much of this abuse has been documented on this blog, that to say I am shocked by each new trangression would be as ironic as Adoplh Menjou in “Casablance”.
Generally an offer to resolve a dispute is not admissible to establish liability. An offer to apologize in return for an agreement not to sue seems to fall into this category, though I am not familiar with Texas law specifically. In some states an apology itself, whether spontaneous or not, is inadmissible to prove liability. In order to establish liability on anyone beyond the specific officers involved under section 1983, the plaintiff would have to prove that there was a policy or custom of committing the type of violation at issue or that the municipality/supervisors knew that the offending officer committed such acts and failed to take reasonable steps to remedy the conduct.
I’d say…. I’d love to be the attorney for the Plaintiff….
Comments are closed.