Results 1 to 45 of 45

Thread: Cisco Police

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    8,695

    Cisco Police

    Did anyone see the video of the Cisco Police on facebook before it got deleted supposedly because it was evidence? Or read the resulting uproar (also since deleted) on the facebook page: Eastland County TX Breaking News? There was the usual gamut of praise for the officers from those who admitted they didn't see the video and knew nothing of the circumstances, but some good valid points were made otherwise. Was the video really deleted to prevent KTAB from airing it on the nightly news?

    It appeared to show two Cisco officers arresting grampa, also present were a lady and some mouthy teenagers videoing the arrest with their cell phones. One officer appeared to demand the videos be deleted, otherwise the officer would confiscate their cell phones.

    But later the excuse for threatening to confiscate the phones was that the videos on those phones was evidence...but then why did the officer demand the video be deleted if it was evidence?

    This was a good opportunity for the officers to really shine in local law enforcement transparency to the citizens.
    Instead we got more of the old sweeping under the rug. It was also suggested if we didn't like what we saw to contact the district attorney's office. Why dump it on him?

    The way I see it, the one officer is guilty of attempted theft and official oppression. But no one is perfect, especially in times of stress, and there is only one solution.
    Just apologize like a real man and be done with it.

    Officers, and anyone in positions of public trust should be required to serve in the private sector and not eligible for these positions until they are at least thirty years old. That does not include Iraq war veterans. We are not insurgents with bombs stuck up our asses and are damned sick and tired of being treated as such.

    Yes we are very grateful to dedicated law enforcement, but faced with the choice of leaving the Cisco thief on the streets, or overbearing law enforcement, I think most will choose the thief.

    Particularly disheartening was a post made by one local official, suggesting that a citizen look up the term "gfy" on the internet to see what it means..
    The meaning of the term is to "go F yourself."

    When one official makes this gesture to a citizen, it is the same to all of us, as though all officials were making the same gesture to us.

    To those who may find this upsetting:
    don't waste your time in a confrontation with the officers, or waste their time,
    don't pester the district attorney,
    don't phone the Texas Ranger,
    and don't contact the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement for matters this trivial.

    If you aren't happy with your local law enforcement, hold your elected officials feet to the fire, either make your opinion known at a city council meeting calmly, pleasantly, without shouting, or other dramatics...
    or let the council members and the mayor know how you feel when you see them around town.

    Whoever you may be, take this information and use it to improve yourselves, or just get pissed. The choice is yours.
    Last edited by MiraculousMutha; 03-04-2015 at 03:12 PM.
    Secretary,
    Harper Valley PTA

  2. #2
    If you know someone who knows someone... get us a copy and we can post it here. It has been adjudicated, the Attorney General has ruled... It is legal to record police officers performing official duties. (You can't interfere or get in the way to make your recording.) In some cases the police or prosecutors can subpena copies of recordings for evidence but they can't make you destroy it and under most circumstances they can't confiscate your phone without a warrant. God help us.

    "...democracy must be more than what the majority insists upon."
    Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Gordon, Texas, United States
    Posts
    16,210

  4. #4
    It is the policy of the Cisco Police Department that cell phones may not be searched without consent or a search warrant.
    So it is the policy of the CPD to follow the laws and respect the Bill of Rights? That is comforting.

  5. #5
    Wait.

    During these events, one of the officers noticed several of the persons on the scene were recording events on cell phones and felt compelled to take the phones because he believed that they may contain evidence of interference with public duties of a police officer and resisting arrest.
    It is the policy of the Cisco Police Department that cell phones may not be searched without consent or a search warrant.
    So which is it?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    8,695
    Quote Originally Posted by curious_george View Post
    If you know someone who knows someone... get us a copy and we can post it here.
    https://www.facebook.com/Quintinlong10?fref=ts

    Scroll down to the post that says SHARE THIS TO EVERYONE yesterday at 1:57 pm.
    There is a pic of one of the Cisco officers.

  7. #7
    Wow. I see why the policemen are frustrated. But he/they need some reeducation vis a vis the propriety of recording. If that is an edited version the owner should post the full version imho.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    8,695
    The full version showed the arrest taking place inside the house prior. Since the video is about nine months old, the Supreme Court ruling and the law has supposedly changed on confiscating cell phone footage since that time.
    My position is that the officers should welcome any and all videos of them doing a good job and treating citizens with respect. Their prevailing macho attitude of seizing control by grabbing personal property and throwing people down on the ground is where my problem with them lies as well as the failure to be transparent by hiding these vids so we aren't able to view them for ourselves with the bs excuse they are litigation. So what if they are? People hide things they are ashamed of.
    Last edited by MiraculousMutha; 03-04-2015 at 10:19 PM.

  9. #9
    In 2012, the community of Sharpstown, Texas, made the controversial decision not to renew its contract with the local police department and instead hire a private security firm to combat crime.
    Since SEAL Security Solutions took over law enforcement in Sharpstown, crime has reportedly dropped by 61 percent in just 20 months.

    Read story: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015...ened-to-crime/
    Murphy was an optimist!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Gordon, Texas, United States
    Posts
    16,210
    There must be at least one other video. There was another person with a video camera the police were first telling to delete the video or he was taking the phone (paraphrasing). Then there is the video we see.

    I did see a spot in the video where it had been edited.. or stopped and started again or something.

    I wonder, as some others have mentioned in the comments, if the explanation for demanding the phones was to get evidence they thought was on the phones, why then would they give them the choice of deleting the video?

    The other question that I had and others have asked is what the original charge was for the person they said they had charged with evading arrest. You have to be arresting them for something in order for them to evade that arrest don't you? Maybe the explanation just wasn't very clear.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Gordon, Texas, United States
    Posts
    16,210
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraculousMutha View Post
    The full version showed the arrest taking place inside the house prior.
    Have you seen this full version?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    8,695
    No Julie I believe that was on facebook somewhere.

    Also, is the officer who wanted the video deleted being charged with destroyng evidence?
    Of course not, however they would all be damned quick to charge you or I with such.

    Oh I get it now. The officer wanted the citizens to delete their videos so he could charge them with destroying evidence. And yes, I truly believe that.

    Is that being fair to the two Cisco officers? No it isn't, they are bearing the burden for the dishonest cops who have gone before them.

    That is why it is important for them to stand up and arrest their own, holding themselves to a higher standard, not a lower one as has been the case.

    Civil obedience here in the US is voluntary. When the citizens finally get enough and rise up, the safest place for career cops and politicians will be Mexico.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,577
    M&M.... by golly...... once in a blue moon we are on the same page. I agree with you. (Is it going to get cold again now?)

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    881
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=57f_1425848073


    This is the video I saw. It sure looks illegal.
    Let's Make the Spin Great Again!!

  15. #15
    Looks like civil rights violations in Cisco but is that really news?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    8,695
    This all sounds like one of our local grocery stores a few years back. The manager hired school kids, who were the children of his customers, then fired them after a few days or a week without realizing his role as mentor to these young people in their first job. With each child he fired, he lost twenty customers, since each child had parents, friends, neighbors, and family members who moved their business to the other store.

  17. #17
    You're thinking Ciscovites will begin using the other police department?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    6,537
    You are da bomb, George!
    Walk softly and carry a big stick.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraculousMutha View Post
    No Julie I believe that was on facebook somewhere.
    Facebook is teh suck. As I understand it, CPD requested the video taken down and it was. Why? I suppose the one who posted it might fear retribution the next time they venture into the Cisco jurisdiction. Having all your belongings spilled into a convenience store parking lot and drug sniffing dogs... a time honored tradition.

    Quote Originally Posted by MiraculousMutha View Post
    Also, is the officer who wanted the video deleted being charged with destroyng evidence?
    It isn't evidence if it doesn't exist. Gotcha!

    Quote Originally Posted by MiraculousMutha View Post
    Of course not, however they would all be damned quick to charge you or I with such.
    Agreed. Even if it wasn't evidence to begin with. You know what they say; you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride.

    Quote Originally Posted by MiraculousMutha View Post
    Oh I get it now. The officer wanted the citizens to delete their videos so he could charge them with destroying evidence. And yes, I truly believe that.
    This is where you and I differ. I suspect he wanted it deleted so nobody who wasn't there that day would have a view to what really went on. Although that assumes a sense of shame, a fact not in evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by MiraculousMutha View Post
    Is that being fair to the two Cisco officers? No it isn't, they are bearing the burden for the dishonest cops who have gone before them.
    I'm confused. Weren't we talking about Cisco officers?

    Quote Originally Posted by MiraculousMutha View Post
    That is why it is important for them to stand up and arrest their own, holding themselves to a higher standard, not a lower one as has been the case.
    Who's the dreamer now?

    Quote Originally Posted by MiraculousMutha View Post
    Civil obedience here in the US is voluntary. When the citizens finally get enough and rise up, the safest place for career cops and politicians will be Mexico.
    Pshaw! While it is quite easy to move north across the border, the Mexicans don't put up with that stuff willingly.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Gordon, Texas, United States
    Posts
    16,210
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraculousMutha View Post
    No Julie I believe that was on facebook somewhere.
    So you are working on hearsay. Although someone on the video mentions they had been inside without a warrant, I haven't seen any video of such. 2nd note on this situation is that it seems to be as the police say... if they were serving an arrest warrant and believed the person to be in the house, they can enter to make the arrest. Arrest of girl = legal arrest. One of the people in the home was arrested for hindering that arrest, which sounds like another legal arrest.

    I do question the legality of the police officer's demand for the person in the driveway to delete the video or he was going to take the phone. Apparently he didn't take the phones... or maybe he did and they got them back (it doesn't actually show the police taking the phone(s) away in the video), or maybe they took one phone and didn't take the one with the video we saw on it? With what I saw on the video, if they were going to do some illegal confiscating/destroying of video I would think we wouldn't be seeing it on Facebook. At least one of the phone owners (the one arrested for resisting arrest) seems to have ended up with their phone and video intact. The demand to delete the video does contradict the chief's explanation that they were trying to get the phones because they thought there might be evidence on them... and I think the demand he was making seems more like a bully tactic (which I really despise) than a legal demand.

    As far as the neighbor's arrest... looking at the jail report it seems the police were attempting to search him and he resisted this, so they slapped him with 'resist arrest search or transport', and 'evading arrest detention'. So was his crime that he was at the warrant arrest location, went to his house and then didn't want them to search his person? Wonder why they didn't arrest the lady that was hollering and giving all the instructions. She seemed to be inciting a riot.

  21. #21
    I thought the issue/dispute was over the recordings and the officer's demand that recording cease and and files deleted.

    AFAIK, nobody ever deserves to be arrested, nobody is ever guilty. If the police have a warrant are they compelled to show it before the arrest? I don't know. TV cops usually go in brandishing their warrant if they have one but I'm not sure if that has any relation to reality.

    So irregardless of any of that there the hullabaloo, IMHO, is over the phones/video and the cop's demands vis a vis the phones/videos.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Gordon, Texas, United States
    Posts
    16,210
    Quote Originally Posted by curious_george View Post
    Facebook is teh suck. As I understand it, CPD requested the video taken down and it was. Why? I suppose the one who posted it might fear retribution the next time they venture into the Cisco jurisdiction. Having all your belongings spilled into a convenience store parking lot and drug sniffing dogs... a time honored tradition.
    Who are you referring to that received a request to take the video down? Eastland County Tx Breaking News? A request by CPD and the fact that there was a minor in the video are the reasons they gave for deleting the share. Those guys running that page aren't making any money on it so you can't afford (literally) to ruffle feathers and I'm sure they didn't think making enemies of the Cisco Police Department was worth letting it sit there. However the video is still out there on Facebook being viewed and being shared. KTAB picked it up and I"m sure that sparked a lot of shares.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Gordon, Texas, United States
    Posts
    16,210
    Quote Originally Posted by curious_george View Post
    I thought the issue/dispute was over the recordings and the officer's demand that recording cease and and files deleted.

    AFAIK, nobody ever deserves to be arrested, nobody is ever guilty. If the police have a warrant are they compelled to show it before the arrest? I don't know. TV cops usually go in brandishing their warrant if they have one but I'm not sure if that has any relation to reality.

    So irregardless of any of that there the hullabaloo, IMHO, is over the phones/video and the cop's demands vis a vis the phones/videos.
    The video questions the legality of the entry into the home.. that's what I was responding to... but I'm sure their lawyers have enlightened them on that.

    There are two other questions that I've seen floating around with the videos..

    The main one is, as you said, the legality of their ability to demand the phone's video be deleted or handing the phone over to police. And because it seems the cameramen are not legally required to hand over their device or delete the video, that would lead to a presumption that either the Cisco police officer didn't know that (which I would hope isn't the case) or they acting on the presumption that the people they are talking to will either be too intimidated to deny the demand, or they don't know the law well enough to refuse the demand. Also the explanation from CPD that "During these events, one of the officers noticed several of the persons on the scene were recording events on cell phones and felt compelled to take the phones because he believed that they may contain evidence of interference with public duties of a police officer and resisting arrest" contradicts the officer's demand to delete the video.


    All of that then leads me to a bigger fear that if a police officer is willing to step on a person's rights in this situation, what would make you think they wouldn't arrest you on some technicality (even if it doesn't hold up) simply because you won't buckle under their demands... and who wants to be arrested? IMO, this just isn't good for the police department or the citizens they are supposed to serve and protect.


    The other question is the arrest of the neighbor. The released response from the Cisco police says they arrested him for resisting arrest... but several have asked what the charge is that they were arresting him for that triggered his resisting arrest. Looking at the jail reports it seems that charge was for refusing to allow the police to search their person?
    Last edited by Julie; 03-10-2015 at 11:55 AM.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,421
    I fail to to find any sympathetic feelings toward the Cisco Dennison's because their local police is like the Palo Pinto County Sheriffs Dept.
    A high handed Dept hell bent on going by their rules correct or not. Cussed out & Arresting a 78 year old man on his sons word that had embezzeled his property for the last 13 years.
    When I was told by this poster that I was a fool.
    Yep, cry me another river of tears because it looks like that the shoe is on the other foot.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    8,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Julie View Post
    So you are working on hearsay.
    Nearly anyone could figure it out Julie. It showed a cuffed man being placed in the backseat of the car.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    8,695
    Quote Originally Posted by mingus108 View Post
    When I was told by this poster that I was a fool.
    Who said that? I'll kick their ass.

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Julie View Post
    ... I'm sure they didn't think making enemies of the Cisco Police Department was worth letting it sit there. ...
    That is the point isn't it.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,421
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraculousMutha View Post
    Who said that? I'll kick their ass.
    Just do every time you look in the mirror.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Gordon, Texas, United States
    Posts
    16,210
    If passed, in Texas this will slow down all these videos that are causing such a ruckus among the people....

    A bill has been filed by Texas Representative Jason Villalba (R-Dallas), HB 2918 that would make it illegal for most people to video, photograph, record or document a peace officer "performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law".

    The law has exceptions for the corporate media outlets. Internet media is not mentioned as an exception. So.. the fewer cameras around at the time, the easier it is to control what's being put out there to the public. I'm sure this would also help the politician who may be caught in a scandalous arrest. No more video sent in to the media outlet by a private citizen... unless they are standing more than 25 feet away or 100 feet back if they are carrying a gun. I don't really understand the reason for the difference in distances there. Does video taping something cause you to want to shoot something? The guy with a gun but not recording can stand closer? Or have I misread this part of the bill?

    The idea of government limiting the private citizen's ability to document their side of the story really disturbs me.
    Last edited by Julie; 03-13-2015 at 10:11 AM.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Gordon, Texas, United States
    Posts
    16,210
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraculousMutha View Post
    Nearly anyone could figure it out Julie. It showed a cuffed man being placed in the backseat of the car.
    I don't understand what you are saying here. How does having a cuffed man sitting in the backseat of the car support the idea that there was a 2nd video on Facebook somewhere.. or that there was video taken inside the home?

    Looking at the jail reports, I would say that the cuffed man in the car was the one interfering with the officer arresting the girl.

    Looking at the video we know there was the one video we are seeing, then it looks like another person is posed to video the scene, but I haven't seen any video from that viewpoint if he was actually recording the scene. That person appeared to be the neighbor that eventually is arrested in front of his home. It is also on his Facebook page that I first saw the shared video that is linked in this thread. So if he took the scene from another viewpoint, he's not shared that video to my knowledge.

    If there was video taken inside the home and if they thought it was showing illegal activity by the police department, why wouldn't they have already shared that one also?

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Gordon, Texas, United States
    Posts
    16,210
    Quote Originally Posted by curious_george View Post
    That is the point isn't it.
    Whether it's true sharing that video would cause problems with the police or not... it's a point they definitely have to consider... if that's your point.

  32. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Julie View Post
    If passed, in Texas this will slow down all these videos that are causing such a ruckus among the people....

    A bill has been filed by Texas Representative Jason Villalba (R-Dallas), HB 2918 that would make it illegal for most people to video, photograph, record or document a peace officer "performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law".

    The law has exceptions for the corporate media outlets. Internet media is not mentioned as an exception. So.. the fewer cameras around at the time, the easier it is to control what's being put out there to the public. I'm sure this would also help the politician who may be caught in a scandalous arrest. No more video sent in to the media outlet by a private citizen... unless they are standing more than 25 feet away or 100 feet back if they are carrying a gun. I don't really understand the reason for the difference in distances there. Does video taping something cause you to want to shoot something? The guy with a gun but not recording can stand closer? Or have I misread this part of the bill?

    The idea of government limiting the private citizen's ability to document their side of the story really disturbs me.
    I find it disturbing too. I hope people call and write and make known their disturbedness on the matter. I'm not sure they can craft a bill that will circumvent the already settled case law but the fact it is being advanced at all is sickening.

  33. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Julie View Post
    Whether it's true sharing that video would cause problems with the police or not... it's a point they definitely have to consider... if that's your point.
    That someone not breaking any laws must exercise caution so as not to make enemies of the police was the point.

    I suppose I'd want to see how the minor was depicted before I'd agree to take down a video. I would be more concerned with antagonizing my readers than making enemies with the police but that's me and I don't have to deal with the situation personally.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,421
    I find it interesting that a Hispanic out of Dallas would file a case like this.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    8,695
    25 feet is not unreasonable. The officers don't need people getting in their way and ending up stabbed. 100 feet away is still close enough to get shot. Maybe Hispanics in Dallas are smarter than white trash from mingus or eastland.

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,560
    Those folks just get shot at more.

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,421
    They that stands around when shots are fired are doomed to live short lives.
    A old saying by Mingus

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    8,695
    From experience no doubt.

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Gordon, Texas, United States
    Posts
    16,210
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraculousMutha View Post
    25 feet is not unreasonable. The officers don't need people getting in their way and ending up stabbed. 100 feet away is still close enough to get shot. Maybe Hispanics in Dallas are smarter than white trash from mingus or eastland.
    This 25 feet requirement only has to do with recording the actions of what's going on. There is no distance requirement for those who are just standing around waiting to get stabbed. I'm sure the 25 feet requirement is to degrade the quality of the video. I still don't get the 100 foot requirement if you are armed... but I'm sure someone was sitting around the table giving what ifs and that's the ridiculous solution they came up with.

    When you are standing next to someone who is being arrested in public and you are wanting to capture the event on video for future reference, that should be your right. What we remember and recall is often different from what actually happened. We tend to filter out the things that don't line up with our own perception of what went on that was right and wrong.

    A video can backfire often also. After uploading a video to Youtube someone recorded of what they thought was a pizza delivery guy being rude when he was called back to their office for keeping what he thought was tip money, much of the public saw it as a bunch of jerks treating a pizza delivery guy rudely.

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    8,695
    Twenty five feet is still pretty close Julie.

  41. #41
    People in crowds get arrested too. If you are in a crowded place where an arrest is taking place all you would record from 25 feet away is the back of the heads of the eye witnesses. It is rightly illegal to impede or interfere, that is all that is needed.

  42. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Gordon, Texas, United States
    Posts
    16,210
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraculousMutha View Post
    Twenty five feet is still pretty close Julie.
    Why would they have to have a minimum distance in place only if you are carrying a recording device?

  43. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Gordon, Texas, United States
    Posts
    16,210
    Quote Originally Posted by curious_george View Post
    People in crowds get arrested too. If you are in a crowded place where an arrest is taking place all you would record from 25 feet away is the back of the heads of the eye witnesses. It is rightly illegal to impede or interfere, that is all that is needed.

  44. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    8,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Julie View Post
    Why would they have to have a minimum distance in place only if you are carrying a recording device?
    For reasons of safety and to give the officers room to work, sometimes 100 feet isn't enough distance. People shouldn't have to be told, but that is how they are in the new age of blissful ignorance.
    Which leads us to a brand new police topic...

  45. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,421
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraculousMutha View Post
    For reasons of safety and to give the officers room to work, sometimes 100 feet isn't enough distance. People shouldn't have to be told, but that is how they are in the new age of blissful ignorance.
    Which leads us to a brand new police topic...
    From past experience I realize you are no authority on the subject

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •