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?
Trooper York
Yes, I saw the remark about rejoicing over the death of a police officer, and I waited, waited patiently to see if some of the allegedly self-styled staunch supporters of all that is good and true would comment on it. I waited, with baited breath, to see if anyone would roundly condemn the insidious and despicable statement. Crickets. Don’t let the s&$t about claims to know and associate with cops, or allegations of relatives in law enforcement, con you. These individuals are duplicitous, at best. They claim to love and respect police officers–the good officers, of course–but any mention regarding the insignificance of their lives and threats to their safety pass without so much as a boo. Better not mention the likelihood of protests, riots or mobs. Now that, mind you, gets their panties in a bunch.
trooper,
Gee. You’re a lousy storyteller.
randyjet’s friend was a conservative, cop-supporter, kind of guy. Then one day during some incident a cop got mad when the conservative wouldn’t get off of his own lawn and so arrested him, cuffed him, and stuck him in a closed windows, no air conditioned squad car for 30 brain-frying minutes while the cop went for donuts or something. IIRC, it was a really hot day – maybe somewhere in Texas.
Conservative friend no longer feels the love for cops.
I’m sure if trooper found himself cuffed inside a closed squad car for thirty minutes frying his brain, upon release he would insist that the cop get the Medal of Freedom.
At least randyjet has some integrity. In another thread he tells us how his friends would rejoice if he heard that a cop was shot. I guess he is not as good at dissembling as most of the cop haters here. The relentless attack and demonize law enforcement an wonder why crazy people feed into it and murder cops. Or shoot at them. It is all a big mystery to them.
Trooper York
You see, in the Brave New World, rejoicing at the possibility of an officer’s death is the same as not giving him the Medal of Freedom. Don’t you get it? They’re the same. Equal. How could you be so blind?
One has to wonder, is this Free Computer Thursday in the crazy house? Maybe there’s gonna be a full moon out tonight?
Trooper York
Agreed. Once the savages break down the doors of the enablers, who have brought the mayhem to fruition by their actions and words, maybe they will then realize what they have brought to pass. Actually, come to think of it, they will blame the police for not being around to protect them. It will be too late, and they will have no clue as to their respective roles in their own demise.
That’s right, bigfatmike, keep denying what you and others have stated here. Makes for a fascinating read!
“Carefully examine the remarks at 11:42, where we are reminded that actors, musicians and ordinary people are the target of death threats, thereby encouraging us to find the behavior, directed to the officer, as a normal and expected occurrence. Reading. It’s fundamental.”
The claim seems to be that the post at 11:42 states that threats are 1) normal in the sense of being acceptable and 2) expected in the sense of being no big deal.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Those claims ignore both the complete text of the comment at 11:42 and the context of other remarks made both earlier and later.
First lets consider the claim that threats are normal in the sense of being acceptable.
If bam bam had continued to read the comment at 11:42 he would have found “The way to deal with credible threats is through our well known laws and well established LE techniques. “. Does that sound like threats are normal in the sense of being acceptable? I think not. What do you think?
If bam bam had been honest enough to consider the context of the remark at 11:42 he would have admitted that at 1109 there was a remark that included “We have good laws to deal with credible threats. Lets use them.” Does that sound like threats are normal and acceptable? I think not. What do you think?
If bam bam had been honest enough to consider the context of the comment at 1142 he would have found a comment at 1218 that states “The actual retort was that credible threats are a law enforcement issue that cannot be solved with censorship”. Does “credible threats are a law enforcement issue…” sound like these remarks suggest that we ignore credible threats? I think not. What do you think?
As for point 2, the fact is that crazies and threats are widespread on the internet from blogs like this one, social media and in comments after news stories. Does anyone want to seriously argue that threat are not wide spread.
The reason I pointed out that threats are wide spread was to highlight how impractical and unacceptable it would be for our society to allow threats to shutdown public discourse. If we follow bam bam and stop taking because some crazy may make a threat no one could say anything on the internet.
I argue that we must never let the crazies and their threats prevent us from speaking out. We must never be intimidated by the crazies. We must never let peer pressure or the bam bams of the world prevent us from speaking out on important issues. What do you think?
Finally I have pointed out numerous times we who engage in thoughtful discussion on important issues are not responsible for the acts of crazy people.
Bam bam’s accusations are illogical and unacceptable. He should place blame where it really belongs – on the crazies who threaten, intimidate and occasionally, and tragically achieve their criminal purpose.
If bam bam will turn his attention to the crazies who are the real problem I am sure he will have many here who will join him. What do you think?
We can make all the comments we want but they don’t change the facts on the ground. The police are back on their heels and the savages are rejoicing. Baltimore is just a harbinger of what will happen now that lid is off.
It is coming to a CVS or a community pool near you.
The center can not hold.
Yes, BFM, I agree with Wade. Keep up the comments, love reading your take on things.
Trooper York
Your articulate and well-written comments clearly and succinctly hit the mark. Unfortunately, with some, it is an exercise in futility, so much so that comments, clearly made maligning police officers and minimizing threats to their lives, are denied after they have been made. Your comments are consistently well-reasoned and thoughtful, and they mimic what the majority of our citizens believe.
big mike
Wonderful series of comments.
Long may you write!
That’s right, folks. Carefully examine the remark at 12:45 am, where we are informed that Obama gets death threats, so this officer’s claim of being on the receiving end of death threats is no big deal. Obama’s alive, isn’t he? No biggie. Carefully examine the remarks at 11:42, where we are reminded that actors, musicians and ordinary people are the target of death threats, thereby encouraging us to find the behavior, directed to the officer, as a normal and expected occurrence. Reading. It’s fundamental. I couldn’t make this s&$t up if I tried. First write the crap, then back pedal and deny any accountability. I’d be ashamed of it, too. Better try next time.
No one is calling for censorship. You can say what you want. Whip up the hatred and distrust of the police that progressive politicians like Obama and De Blasio traffic in to win votes. It is still a free country more or less. But don’t expect us to turn a blind eye to the fact that this encourages a culture that empowers crazy people to act out on their cop killer fantasies.
It happened in NYC. It will happen again this summer. It is a replay of the 1970s and the BLA who are heroes to so many on the left. We have seen this before. It will not end well.
It is not a matter of blue flu that is causing the uptick in murders and violence. It is the fact that aggressive policing is not happening and the savages have free reign. The cop haters here want a purely reactive force. One that shows up to put a chalk outline around the bodies of dead children. So much so that even when someone draws a gun or shoots at the police there are calls that the cops should back away and not engage. People who demand inaction will get inaction. Mayor De Blasio ended stop and frisk and murders are skyrocketing. Nobody in their right mind would put their family at risk when the are hated and despised and second guessed to the point of absurdity.
You want to turn the police into garbage men to just come around after everything is over. In Baltimore you are seeing the end result of that strategy.
Trooper York
How convenient that a criticism, leveled against those who jumped to judge and condemn this officer, prior to any substantial facts emerging or a thorough investigation, suddenly provokes a cry that their right to express their ill-informed opinions is being restricted. Go ahead, spout your hate, but just know that your words and actions have consequences. No one is saying that this officer’s actions shouldn’t have been reviewed. The mob mentality, however, doesn’t sit by and allow that to happen. Condemn first, ask questions later. Keep up the good work. Even reports, that the officer and his family received a multitude of death threats, so much so that the family needed to move to an undisclosed location, garners no sympathy. The retort is, OH WELL, EVERYBODY GETS DEATH THREATS. NO BIG DEAL. OBAMA GETS DEATH THREATS. HE’S STILL ALIVE. The mental process, of those with these odd and disturbed beliefs, really should be studied by science.
“The retort is, OH WELL, EVERYBODY GETS DEATH THREATS. NO BIG DEAL. OBAMA GETS DEATH THREATS. HE’S STILL ALIVE. The mental process, of those with these odd and disturbed beliefs, really should be studied by science.”
I hope everyone does notice this and think it through carefully.
The actual retort was that credible threats are a law enforcement issue that cannot be solved with censorship – not the mis characterization quoted above.
Those who resort to mis characterizing or mis stating remarks demonstrate they do not have good arguments. If they could be convincing without mis characterizing of mis stating they would do it.
Use your head. Which group of statements make more sense.
Trooper York
You make mention of Baltimore, where the police have retreated, allowing the criminal element to rule the streets, yet this is not confined to Baltimore. Nothing happens in a vacuum. I recently spoke with a police chief from a municipality located in St. Louis County. He clearly stated that the number of stops, conducted by his officers, had drastically reduced. His officers were, for lack of a better phrase, taking a much more laissez-faire attitude with regard to policing; they’re just no longer willing to patrol in the same manner as they once were. I don’t blame them. The problem is, unfortunately, that society ends up the loser. Baltimore is just the canary in the coal mine. It’s coming to a city or town near you.
“You make mention of Baltimore, where the police have retreated, allowing the criminal element to rule the streets, yet this is not confined to Baltimore. ”
I am glad you have pointed out that it is police who have retreated.
What we have is some officers abusing their public trust through the blue-flue.
Some officers seem to think they can black mail society into not holding officers accountable to the law.
That is not going to work. We know most officers are dedicated. Most officers do the job the right way.
But anyone with or without a badge who thinks they are above the law will be brought to account.
We may have to fire a few irresponsible officers. But blue-flue is not going to prevent implementation of reasonable rules of engagement, rigorous investigation to questionable events, and holding officers accountable for abuse of their authority where that occurs.
bfm – no one is talking about blue flu. What we are talking about is the DoJ taking over the policing of Feguson. We have a prosecutor in Baltimore that asked for increased policing on a certain corner and now is prosecuting 6 officers who did what she asked. What we have are cops playing CYA.
” We have a prosecutor in Baltimore that asked for increased policing on a certain corner and now is prosecuting 6 officers who did what she asked.”
Asking for increased policing is not the same as asking for an arrest no reason or a trumped up reason. Increased policing is not the same as beating someone of failing to follow standard procedures to ensure their safety during transport.
We don’t know the answers to the questions we have about the 6 officers. But the have ample evidence to pose the questions. As responsible citizens we have the right and the obligation to demand rigorous investigation when something does not seem right.
Increased policing does not usually or normally require a nearly severed spinal column. Anyone who cares about the real standards of LE ought to be demanding answers on that.
bfm – I do not have the news article with the memo sent by Mosby to the police department, but it gave them carte blanc.
@Paul: ” I do not have the news article with the memo sent by Mosby to the police department, but it gave them carte blanc.”
Thanks, I will keep my eye out for that. I am sure it is interesting reading.
bfm – I think Legal Insurrection ran it yesterday.
Trooper York
It’s amusing, if not sad, that those who actively participate in fomenting rage, hate and distrust of the police, so much so that it forms a climate in which the police are viewed as the enemy of the people, will then innocently declare, WHO ME? WHAT DID I DO WRONG? I JUST WANT THE POLICE TO BEHAVE APPROPRIATELY. Fine and dandy, but there’s a way to go about doing that, and it doesn’t include constantly bashing police and denying them the same rights and opportunities granted others. This toxic atmosphere, in which they fully participate, now boasts an all-time high in reported individuals shooting at the police. How convenient to stand back and cry you have nothing to do with that.
The final fruition of the policy of demonizing police is currently on view in Baltimore. The savages are ascendant and the police have retreated because the political leaders want to give them the room to destroy.
The political powers have instituted a policy of surrendering to the mob. This officer knew he had no chance of a fair hearing and had to protect his family from the mob. He was wise to do so because if he or his children were murdered these people would claim it had nothing to do with them as it was crazies acting alone.
“This is the climate fostered by the hatred of the police and the attempt to delitimize the enforcement of the law.”
Sure there are some who really do hate police. But I find it insulting, deeply insulting, that reasonable demands for rigorous investigation and accountability for LE are characterized as “hatred of the police”.
We understand that most officers are doing a good job under difficult circumstances. But that is absolutely no reason to ignore situations that ought to raise questions about training, tactics, and the actions of specific officers.
Finally, the claim that crazies intent on murder are motivated by protests and demands for accountability rather than the actual event in question seems questionable at best.
I see no evidence to suggest that crazies are motivated by words rather than the events that so many of us find questionable. Questioning official conduct is a right and an obligation. We have good capability to deal with those who are moved to violence. Those techniques have nothing to do with censorship.
bfm – questioning some official conduct can be considered Resisting Arrest.
Officers Wu and Ramos would disagree. They were murdered by a protestor who announced his intention on social media.
This is the climate fostered by the hatred of the police and the attempt to delitimize the enforcement of the law.
” They were murdered by a protestor who announced his intention on social media.”
So is the claim they would have been saved from a crazy with a gun is only we had censored the message where the crazy announces his intention?
Or does it make more sense to encourage everyone to speak out and then use good LE techniques against credible threats?
Does it make any sense at all that we can stop crazies with murder in their hearts by preventing them from using using social media?
Do we have any evidence, does anyone believe that censorship changes minds or changes the intention of a crazy violent person?
I don’t see any reason to believe that a crazy with intent to murder will be inhibited by preventing them from using social media or exercising their right to speak out.
It it turns out that we see speech that is a threat then lets deal with that. We have good laws to deal with credible threats. Lets use them.
Trooper York
The frenzied rush to judge this officer, prior to an investigation and without benefit of any facts, is just one more indication of the ongoing trend of demonizing all police officers. Sadly, as many of the remarks indicate, it is now acceptable to condemn officers first and to ask questions later. Little do the useful idiots understand–emphasis on the word IDIOTS–but they have blood on their hands for participating in an atmosphere of damning and vilifying law enforcement. The problem is that they do not recognize their own culpability; one needs a brain, soul and conscience for that.
” Little do the useful idiots understand–emphasis on the word IDIOTS–but they have blood on their hands for participating in an atmosphere of damning and vilifying law enforcement.”
We live in a society with lots of crazies and those crazies often threaten violence.
Actors and musicians receive death threats. Ordinary people who contribute remarks to blogs and social media receive threats such as murder, rape and arson.
If we stopped people from speaking out because someone might make a threat that involves violence then no one would be able to say anything about any one or any event. Not ever.
Preventing people from speaking out because someone might make a threat is not a solution. Cutting off discussion won’t stop the threats. We have good indications these people are angry about a situation or event not what someone commentator said about the event. And cutting off the discussion prevents the give and take of ideas vital for an open democratic society.
It is vital that citizens be able to criticize official mis conduct. The way to deal with credible threats is through our well known laws and well established LE techniques.
Fortunately we have a constitution that protects our right as citizens to criticize government officials.
I find it ironic that those who preach so much about individual responsibility then try to shut people up by the illogical claim that those who speak out are somehow collectively responsible for the actions of crazies and their irrational violence. How convenient and illogical to try to shut up those with whom you disagree.
If they actually had real, credible arguments we can be confident they would make them – and not try to slander the good name of responsible citizens who criticize official mis conduct.
Just remember when they start calling names that is a pretty good indication they are out of real arguments.
bfm – just to deal with the occasional crazy, the Phoenix PD has all of its officers list their home address as the main police office. Makes finding them to serve papers on very easy. 😉
Oh My God.
I still meet bam bam’s over-active imagination with derision.
Mobs! Restless Mobs! (Anybody see any?)
Quell Potential Looting (Is the CVS still standing?)
Burning (Anybody smelling smoke?)
Destruction! (Anybody see any?)
Death Threats! (Did anybody die?)
I’ve no doubt that Darren Wilson received thousands of death threats. He managed to survive and in fact didn’t resign for months. Casebolt over reacted.
Obama receives hundreds of death threats and the Secret Service is not exactly effective. Has he resigned?
Judges receive thousands of death threats and manage to carry on.
Chill, bam bam.
This is country is loaded with crazy people who send millions of threatening messages daily. Casebolt resigned of his own volition and, in my opinion, too fast. I think he could have weathered the storm. I think he realized what a jerk he was and simply caved. As I said in an earlier comment, that’s too bad. A couple of months off with no pay would be good enough for me. I think he probably would have come back a better cop.
So no crow for me, bam bam. Maybe you have an imaginary playmate left over from your childhood who will be entertained by your fevered dreams.
“This is country is loaded with crazy people who send millions of threatening messages daily. ”
I think I have to agree. There must be millions of crazies who are ready to make threats for many reasons or no reason at all.
I also am not aware of any evidence that would suggest the crazies are acting because of the words of those who criticize public officials. On the contrary I think it is much more reasonable to believe the crazy who makes threats is acting on his own perception of the public official.
In any case. what ever the motivation of the crazy we must not let them have a veto over criticism. If we fail to speak out because we fear the actions of the crazies we let the crazy determine the content of public discourse. Our democratic society requires public discussion and criticism. We have to speak out even if we fear the crazies. The way to deal with crazies is through good LE not censorship of speech – regardless whether that censorship is accomplished by peer pressure or official action.
Finally, I don’t advocate that anyone shut up. But if I had to make a guess about a part of the motivation of the crazies it seems to me that some of their motivation has to do with frustration that nothing is done about official misconduct.
In that sense it is then those who claim we should hot criticize public officials who, in fact, contribute to the motivation of the crazies. But as I pointed out, it is important that we all add our perceptions and understanding to the discussion.
It is vital that we speak out when we see that which we believe is official mis conduct. It is equally important that we make clear we are responsible for our own words. We are not responsible for the words or the actions or others – specifically we are not responsible for the crazies who disrupt our discussion. We are not responsible for the crazies whether they troll our discussion threads or whether they threaten others. They, the crazies, are responsible for their words and their actions including their threats.
@Bams
Casebolt isn’t the only person getting death threats. His original video is above. This is a short fun one. He actually said the cop should resign, but put a different title on the video. Sooo, he got death threats because of the title, but the idiots making the threats obviously didn’t watch the video. You will notice from what I said above, that I did actually watch it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDZ2Mx8zKP0
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter