A McKinney, Texas police officer has been suspended pending review after the posting of a videotape where he draws his gun and manhandles a group of teenagers outside of a pool party. The officer has been identified as Cpl. Eric Casebolt and he is shown being verbally and physically abusive toward young people who are not clearly doing anything unlawful.
The pulling out of the gun is a rapid escalation in a call over a dispute between a mother and a girl at the party. The McKinney Police Department’s Facebook page states that officers responded to a “disturbance” at the Craig Ranch North community pool at 7:15 p.m. It added that the juveniles at the scene “do not live in the area or have permission to be there.” It further says that people failed to respond to orders and officers struggled to “gain control of the situation.”
Casebolt,40, is a 10-year-veteran and serves as a vice president of McKinney’s police union. He received an award for “Patrolman of the Year” in 2008. The Washington Post reports that he is an instructor at Executive Self-Defense and Fitness and has a website that heralds his “ strong working knowledge of human behavior” and “experience in the use of all levels of force.” As is often the case, people have collected various pictures of Casebolt though the one dressed as an Indian chief at a party seems to be the favorite. That is part of the reality of the world of social media today.
Do you consider this level of force to be justified?
Ken you’re right, I watched this video multiple times. At no time did these two boys reach into their waistband, or make any threatening gestures to cop. This out of control histrionic cop seemed to be angry that they dared approach him, while allowing the big fat whit guy to hover almost on top of him.
Inga – the big fat white guy I think is the HOA manager.
This type of policing will not end until the ethical and professional officers BLOW THE WHISTLE. Another black eye for Law Enforcement, a profession I loved.
@ Karen S
Thanks to MAX-1’s post above, I did have time to look up your post on the shooting of Walter Scott:
“Karen S
“1, April 8, 2015 at 12:17 pm
“So awful. Cops chase suspects all the time without shooting them. It’s the joke at some of the precincts that they get their exercise at work. I couldn’t watch the video, [emphasis added] but if he shot a fleeing suspect in the back like that he should be in jail. I feel sorry for the victim’s family.”
You seem to be having trouble watching the Casebolt video, as well. Is that what you mean by being “consistent” in your reaction to the two cases?
If you become interested in knowing what happened, both with regard to his going after and grabbing the girl and his drawing his gun on the two male teenagers, take a look at the video above, starting at 2:30 into it.
The girl is on the sidewalk in the upper-right corner of the frame and Casebolt strides after and grabs her, then pulls her with him, throwing her to the sidewalk and then dragging her over to the grass where he throws her down and puts both knees on her back.
Freeze the frame at 3:11 and then unfreeze it and try to see either kid “reaching into his waistband.”
Or you can wait until after an official investigation or two tells you what’s in the video.
Your prerogative.
Video of a cop drawing his firearm in a crowd of teenagers does not answer the question “why”, who was he responding to?
By contrast, if we saw video of a mass murderer shooting into a crowd, THAT would be pretty conclusive as to “he did it”. Even then, we would need evidence to see if he was mentally competent or insane to determine his punishment.
Get it???
And, may I add, that if all the evidence comes in and this officer is found to have acted entirely out of line, then as I’ve said before, I support him being subject to appropriate action.
Where you get that this officer is “my authority” seems to be your imagination.
Ken:
That’s a spurious line of argument. I don’t know what about “wait for an investigation” you find so offensive, in your quest for justice and truth.
When I first saw segments of this video on the news, I was disturbed at the cop’s behavior. Why would he pull a gun on kids???? And THEN they showed a segment of video yesterday that showed that man approaching the cop and reaching into his waistband, and the cop drew his weapon and chased after them a few steps. So MAYBE that explains it, but I’m not sure if it’s sufficient cause. And WHY was he so stressed? And then came allegations about kids stealing a truck and wrecking it, knocking down doors to rob. And I thought, why did he toss that girl to the ground like that? And THEN I saw a part of the video that showed her sitting on her butt and refusing to move when he told her to leave, like a two-year old, and not complying when he told her to lie on the ground so he could arrest her. So he heaved her over and kneeled on her. Who knows if any of these allegations are true. That is what an investigation is for.
So, with my very own eyeballs, reviewing the video that we have SO FAR, there are explanations for some of his actions, but I still suspect he should have handled things differently. I want to find out what more evidence is out there. At first, when I saw him draw his firearm, I thought this cop should probably be fired. But then I saw that other guy approaching, reaching into his waistband. Suddenly, firing the cop doesn’t look so good. I still have grave concerns, but clearly more information is coming in all the time that might cast a different perspective. What I found especially interesting was that interview with the eye witness, who also lives in the community and uses the pool – Benet Embry, who happens to be African American. Now, usually I do not note the race of eye witnesses. But the usual suspects are all over the Internet claiming this is a white neighborhood where they don’t want black kids to use the pool. Of course, I was upset reading that, but this man says that it is actually a mixed neighborhood, and black kids use the pool all the time.
Hence, my position on let’s see all the information before making a final determination. I’m still concerned about how he handled that girl. For all the cops on the blog, what is the best way for an officer to arrest a minor who won’t budge? Is there a mild control hold or some other means, or would it have been best to have additional officers help?
Once I have access to all the evidence, as well as the investigative conclusion, THEN I can determine if I agree with it or not.
Your authority seems to be “the Internet” where they show a few minutes of a 30 minute encounter, and then anonymous posters tell everyone what to think.
Karen, Why do you refuse to say what crime the girl committed to warrant her being thrown to the ground and handcuffed? Police do NOT have any right to simply grab and arrest people because they do not like the way they look or talk to them. They all need something called probable cause, and there was NO such thing on the tape. THAT is why the other cops simply stand around and are doing nothing while the crazy cop is grabbing and putting down people in the STREET! Then we have the FACT that the cop NEVER says you are under arrest! He simply says GET DOWN. If a cop says for you to jump off a bridge, he has NO right to demand such a thing and in FACT you have the RIGHT to RESIST.
I was also disturbed by one of the other cops saying, you cannot run from the police. Simply running away from the police is NOT a CRIME if they have no reason to arrest you. In fact, it is a reasonable response to this out of control cop, and if he stays on the force, it will be my policy since I go up to that area, to RUN anytime I see one of those cops.
“I was also disturbed by one of the other cops saying, you cannot run from the police. Simply running away from the police is NOT a CRIME if they have no reason to arrest you”
Wasn’t there a supreme court case on essentially this point. You don’t have to talk to the police. And you can more away from the police unless detained or arrested.
I think the question addressed by the court was whether running away from the police was suspicious and whether the running away could justify being stopped and questioned.
I may have a point or two confused so I would appreciate the comments with some real knowledge of the SC case.
But here is a case where context really does make a difference. When you consider the confused and contradictory instructions issued by the officer and the fact he was stopping some, ordering others to leave, putting some on the ground, handcuffing some, and throwing some to the ground, it seems to me a reasonable person would get as far away from that officer as possible.
I think it would be a hard case indeed to argue there was anything suspicious about running from that officer.
BTW, much has been made about the threat posed by the two young men that justifies the officer pulling his weapon. The officer took several steps to the men with his gun drawn. If he actually feared attack by two assailants, then stepping toward the assailants makes no tactical sense at all.
He was very close to the young men. If he feared attack he needed time and space to defend. His best chance would be to backpedal to provide extra time to fire double taps at multiple assailants. To do otherwise risks being overrun by one or both assailants. Taking several steps toward the men does not indicate fear of attack. It is a display of anger or rage. This officer is not doing police work. He is putting African American teenagers in their place so they know he is the boss.
And why, again, was this girl thrown to the ground?
randyjet – running from the police can be taken as evidence of guilt or a guilty mind. It can be over-come, but it can be brought into evidence. What they are doing is a “Terry stop.” It is not an arrest. However, they are required to comply.
@ Karen S and bam bam
I just had a little epiphany. You both actually need someone in authority to tell you what Casebolt did that day.
You don’t sufficiently trust your own perceptions from watching him with your own eyes to assess his behavior, especially since Casebolt himself is an authority figure for you, so you’re going to wait until someone with the proper authority tells you what to think about it, i.e., after they do a (hopefully exonerating, but at least mitigating) investigation.
There’s a great scene in an episode of “Better Call Saul” in which the main character, Jimmy McGill is a public defender representing three teenagers accused of desecrating a corpse in a morgue. Jimmy makes an eloquent plea to the jury regarding alcohol-fueled youthful indiscretions, how sorry the boys are, and how difficult a conviction on their records would make their prospects in life, etc.
After Jimmy’s finished with his lengthy, emotional plea, the prosecutor doesn’t say a word, but simply rolls out a TV set in front of the jury and plays a video from the morgue’s security camera, showing the boys laughing it up loudly as they sexually desecrate the female corpse, after which the jury took about 8 minutes to bring back their guilty verdict.
I’m afraid your authority figure, Mr. Casebolt, having had his behavior caught on video, faces a similar difficulty, regardless of whether he’s actually charged with a crime or is merely disciplined.
Max-1 and TJustice
OMG, but you dudes need to read that Pathological Altruism link above. Quick, before you both go jump off a bridge or something. Hysteria can kill you if you don’t get in control of it.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Max-1,
That’s not to be discussed here! Never happened!
In related officer abuse threads…
https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/607934382968442880
That’s because they bought it on sale at a protest rally vendor booth. That stuff’s not returnable, even with a receipt.
They’ve been told what to think, and they’re sticking to it, come Hell or high water.
Lol!
kenroger’s definition of terms:
Quality of thinking=demanding that a situation be fully investigated before condemning someone.
Quality of thinking. Get it. It’s priceless.
@karenS
Oh, you are such a spoil sport! Here these folks done already got their rope, and pitchforks, and torches, and a lot of that stuff is non-returnable! It’s use it or lose it!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Ken – you asked if I suspended judgement on the Walter Scott shooting. I referred you to the written record, which will show I’m pretty consistent. That’s hardly a “crass evasion.” Or I could just tell you “I’m pretty consistent” in these kinds of things, and you can take my word for it. I might say something sounds awful and we need a thorough investigation. If you want to know what I said exactly, you go look it up. Why should I spend the time going through archives so I can copy and paste what I said to prove to you that I’m consistent? And it’s tacky to call me crass or question the “quality of my thinking” because I declare we should wait for an investigation before passing judgement beyond being seriously concerned.
Extremists. You just can’t reason with them.
Max – eye witness accounts are important, not just the girl’s account who was arrested. I’m not picking and choosing information. I’ve acknowledged there are allegations against literally everyone, which is why we need to get to the bottom of it.
It’s late, I’m going to sleep. I should stay off this thread because I’m not going to get anywhere with anyone entrenched.
@JunkChuck
I am not a Grammar Nazi, but you made some typing errors. Here, I will fix it for you:
It’s only a matter of time until another baby is killed while she sleeps, or another old woman is shot through her door, or another young person is dragged from his or her car and battered with clubs
for being a wise-ass minority who doesn’t know his or her place.because they live around a bunch of feral blacks who shoot, maim, and kill indiscriminately.You’re welcome!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Karen S
1, June 9, 2015 at 12:14 am
“Ken – if you want to know what I thought about other police shootings or that paralysis of the Indian man, the spinal injury of that other young man, etc, then please read the relevant threads on those topics on this blog.
“I’ve remarked that I have grave concerns about this officer’s actions, but can go no farther until the investigation is completed, obviously. Well, obviously to some.”
See my last response to “bam bam”, as everything in it is directed at and applies to you, too.
No, I won’t be sifting through the archives looking for what you said about the video evidence of the shooting of Walter Scott. I’m surprised that you’d even offer up such a crass evasion.
If you want to avoid answering my question, by all means do so. In view of the quality of your thinking regarding the present case, I can understand why you’d want to.
Max – the cop did not draw his weapon on the 14 year old girl. There are questions about excessive use of force in how he handled her, which need to be addressed in an investigation. But he drew his weapon, and kept it at his side, when those two men came up behind him and one quickly put his hand behind him to his waistband.
It happened very quickly, so onlookers might have misunderstood what was happening if they thought it was directed against the girl. . Again, that action needs to be reviewed in an IA investigation. But he left the girl and went towards those 2 men.
We need all the info to find out what, if any, of the officer’s actions are justified. Maybe none are, but it’s too soon to tell yet.
Ahhhh yesssss. . .the subtle, and far too advanced, notion of prejudging a police officer, absent any real facts. The subtle notion of predetermining another’s guilt, devoid of any investigation, and based upon a small portion of poorly shot film. The subtle notion of behaving like a barbarian, ready to hang someone, based on a gut instinct and shunning the need for accurate facts.
Ahhhh yesssss. . .I must be so inferior to the great and untouchable intellect of kenrogers. A legend in his own demented mind.
Hear say… vs. actual people involved.
You pick which to show the jury… LOL.