Send us your stories, photos, or video that shows the world the lack of professionalism some members of the CCPD have.
- News -
The lack of statistical comparison notwithstanding, Corpus Christi police say their excessive force complaints are few.
Christopher Gale, a San Antonio lawyer known throughout the state for representing people with excessive force complaints, says otherwise. He claims it's one of the worst in the state for excessive force complaints.
"It's not just a couple of bad seeds. It's a pervasive attitude that you can get away with it, where they feel like they're above it and right now I think they are," Gale said. "I probably get three calls a day regarding complaints about CCPD."
2 comments:
related links Posted by 702420 on November 15, 2008 at 7:31 a.m.
in response to 715493
My oh my, are you going to have this same view when you and/or your brother are in the big house doing time? "That corrections officer told me to do something with a mean voice. I don't have to respect him for the way he treats me, so I decided not to do what he asked me to do." What the F*ck? Get a clue! Maybe that's why your brother is in that school in the first place...he has no respect for others and it probably started with your parents not demanding it from him. You're parents should be real proud of raising such a loser who is headed down the road to nowhere, unless you consider prison a step up from where you live now. Your call on that one.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 702420 on November 15, 2008 at 7:37 a.m.
in response to 292564
LMFAO...Punky Loser...the zapper. Hilarious!
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 237849 on November 15, 2008 at 10:17 a.m.
Copied directly from the school website:
"Students may be searched at any time, for any reason, as determined by staff, while on campus and campus grounds. "
This situation would have been the same if it were on another campus or even off school grounds. The facts are that he was where he wan't supposed to be, in possession of a weapon and put his hands on the officer (attack). Until he gains some respect for authority, he's in for a rough life. Obviously your parents were remiss during that phase of his education. What don't you understand????
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 715541 on November 15, 2008 at 11:08 a.m.
The student at the center of this discussion is one of our most conscientious creative and intelligent young adults. He is a hard worker. He gets along with all of us. To say he gets along does not mean he goes along with standardized curriculum, standardized test or everyday norms. He is a great kid with love and happiness in his heart. He is outspoken and too often uses profanity but it is not intended as to disrespect. He is a very respectful kid but he also gives as he receives. Now, to the incident. The boy was in a crowded area and he was eating his bag of chips. With his mind some other place in thought he began pacing back and forth in an area technically off limits but not a big deal as long as it was just one or two students. Redirection is the answer and the Officer did redirect the student in his own rudimentary way. In my opinion it was antagonistic. He said, " what part of do not enter do you not understand?" however without expecting an answer (at least a respectful answer) he heard the student's voice and either he didnt understand or already had his mind set. The Student answered with a mouthful of chips he said, "I understand" and headed back to the designated area. As the Officer displaced his frustration snapped, "I'm tired of your sh&t" and aggressively approached the young man. The boy was not intimidated or at least did not show it. The officer responded with an angry tone informing the student he was going to receive a citation and the student ask him "for what?" "what did I do". The officer would have none of it as his anger ascended he asked the student for his name and the student ask again "what did I do", I am not going to give you my name (because) you wont tell me why you are giving me a ticket. The Officer then asked him if he wanted to go to jail and the officer said do you wanna get tased and grabbed the student (and keep in mind in the education world we are not allowed to put our hands on a student for purposes of physical control) the officer grabbed the student and with great force began to guide the students body towards the wall as if to slam him against the wall. The student countered the Officers aggression as the Officer attempted to grab the student's hand he snatched it back as if a snake had bit him. The student separated from the officer with movements of squirming and swift arm movements protecting himself from the officer's aggression. The student said "Get off of me fool" and the officer said "did you just call me a fool?" as he drew his taser. The student still chewing his chips raised up his hands in surrender (pax) and pleaded with the officer to go down and speak with the Principal. Except the student was unaware the Principal was unavailable and not on campus. The officer beckoned "did you just call me a fool?" as he drew his taser and fired.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 715541 on November 15, 2008 at 11:09 a.m.
One might argue the effects of the taser as harmless and officers even have experienced the taser warm fuzzies themselves but I submit to them have they experienced the prolonged shock of the taser. Have they had the seizure and soiled themselves? This is in my eyes and in the eyes of many who witnessed it the prime example of police brutality. The chaos responded to the every move of pain or uncomfortableness the student exhibited. Then another Officer applied pepper spray to the student under his eyes while he was in the backseat of the cruiser and threatened to spray him if he made any movement at all. The adults who work at Cesar Chavez Charter Academy are not in a position to stop the wrongful acts but we can tell the truth when asked. I understand the FBI will be conducting an investigation. When this is over I believe we will see the Officer facing criminal charges. This publication must dig deeper than one facet.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 237849 on November 15, 2008 at 11:53 a.m.
in response to 715493
A quote from your previous post: "If he was in a normal school and he talked back to someone and pulled his hand away when he was grabbed he would not be arrested or tasered." Do you consider talking back and pulling away from a police officer normal behavior? It is strange that you would state he was talking back since in one of your previous posts you stated he couldn't reply since his mouth was full. It's odd the story changes as it goes on. The next thing we know, the story will be that he was where he was supposed to be and wasn't doing anything. I'm beginning to think you're just as much a loser as your brother and your parents. If you tell the truth, you don't need a good memory. I realize that there are two sides to every story and your brother may have been right, but next time he could be dead right.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 702420 on November 15, 2008 at 2:37 p.m.
in response to 237849
Ouch! Good post.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 714888 on November 15, 2008 at 10:45 p.m.
If, I repeat IF, this happened to a student that was being home schooled...you know walking to the bathroom at home without a pass, and mom asked him where he was going and he swung a weapon made out of nails at her...what would have happened????
Dad would have buried him in the backyard and made another one that looked just like him (attribute that to Bill Cosby).
This kid didn't get what he needed, not enough current (amps) on that thing to give him what he needed.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 237849 on November 16, 2008 at 8:55 a.m.
in response to 715493
Here we go with yet another story. The original story was that he was in an area off limits to students. And now, you say the confrontation was because the officer asked your brother to clear the area where the officer didn't want him. In either case, the appropriate thing to have done would have been to first clear the area and then (if it was merited) ask for a discussion concerning the situation. Rather than do that he escalated the situation to a physical confrontation, an extremely poor choice. I think most of us think your brother got exactly what he deserved at the time and hope that he is appropriately punished during the judicial process. You wouldn't know the truth if it fell on you.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 343021 on November 16, 2008 at 10:01 a.m.
It would be interesting to hear his parents comment on the story.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 237849 on November 16, 2008 at 11:09 a.m.
To 715493:
I see you removed your last post, but I'm going to respond anyway. You quote the police officer during the confrontation as saying, "I'm tired of your s*&^". Earlier you had said your parents transferred your brother in order for him to be in a "more structured environment". Both these statement would lead me to believe that your brother has a history of behavorial problems both at his current school and prior to his transfer. I know you love your brother, but you aren't doing him any favors by defending him. Repeating things like wearing a wrist band with nails and screws as being freedom of expression is ridiculous. Your defense is only enabling him. He does not need that now. He needs tough love. He needs to accept responsibility for his actions and suffer the consequences. He needs to chart another path for his life. I think now would be the time. He needs you now more than ever. Don't listen to all his excuses. You can tell a sixteen year old is lying because his mnouth is moving. If it doesn't make sense it isn't true.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 715552 on November 16, 2008 at 11:34 a.m.
It would NOT be okay if my child was shot because he didn’t give an officer his name. If you are okay with this then you either
a) Don’t have kids
b) Don’t have a heart
Terry Shamzie has heart! He would judge in the side of the kid.
What if the kid had a heart condition! I have heard of 2 specific cases where the person died from being tasered! What is going to happen when the next kid dies? It is inevitable that out of every so many uses of the tazer; 1 will die.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 447098 on November 16, 2008 at 1:12 p.m.
in response to 233778
"What happened to a paddle?".
Man are you out of touch.
If teachers or anyone in the school system even dares to "touch" these little darlings, their parents with lawyers en tote will sue the district for every penny the taxpayers can afford to shell out.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 447098 on November 16, 2008 at 1:17 p.m.
in response to 711534
Refusing to ID yourself whether you are a U.S. citizen or not became a law when we gave up many "rights" under the Patriot Act!
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 247138 on November 16, 2008 at 7:07 p.m.
in response to 246926
You are aware of all the school shootings that have happend in the past, right?
Yea, what schools need are some unexperienced person that is only armed with pepper spray. That'll teach the kids.
If im not mistakin, all of CCISD has CCPD as their "security guards". Hell, they were there roaming the halls when i was in high school 10 years ago.
I can't believe you dont think it's necessary for cops to be in the schools. I wouldn't have it any other way.....
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 714755 on November 16, 2008 at 11:03 p.m.
The kid was just practicing how to use his prison shank that away when he gets there he'll be ready
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 714888 on November 17, 2008 at 7:02 a.m.
Is Shank 101 taught in CCISD as an elective or was he doing an extra credit project for shop class? (I am not picking on CCISD...well maybe just a little bit.)
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 237849 on November 17, 2008 at 7:51 a.m.
in response to 715541
Are you a staff member or a student????
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 237849 on November 17, 2008 at 9:31 a.m.
in response to 715541
Since you didn't reply, I’m going to make the assumption that you’re a student and defending one of your peers. I can’t help but believe that a normal, mature staff member would know the reason for police officers in the schools and welcome their presence in keeping the mainstream student population safe. The officer was not there for precisely the same reason as normal school staff members. He was there to "Protect and Serve". To protect the citizens of Texas to include students, staff members and visitors to the school and to enforce the Texas Penal Code and school regulations. Your comments are rife with contradictions, opinions and suppositions. How can you possibly know what the police officer was thinking " however without expecting an answer (at least a respectful answer)”. ? And how can you possibly now what the student was thinking, “. With his mind some other place in thought he began pacing back and forth in an area technically off limits but not a big deal as long as it was just one or two students”? If one student is in the area or two or fifty, the rule is broken. I doubt there is a no big deal caveat. “To say he gets along does not mean he goes along with standardized curriculum, standardized test or everyday norms.” This should be flag number one; evidently he really does not go along with everyday norms! How can you characterize him as respectful in one breath and then say, “He is outspoken and too often uses profanity but it is not intended as to disrespect.” How can the use of profanity NOT be called “disrespectful” and how do you know his intent? By our own account, even after the taser was used, he continued to resist. “The chaos responded to the every move of pain or uncomfortableness the student exhibited. Then another Officer applied pepper spray to the student under his eyes while he was in the backseat of the cruiser and threatened to spray him if he made any movement at all.” The purpose of the taser and pepper spray is to provide pain and discomfort to gain compliance in lieu of more deadly force. Also, you do not address the officer’s injury. If the injury occurred during the attempt to restrain the individual, it constitutes an attack. You also do NOT address the fact that he was in possession of a deadly weapon that was designed to maim or kill. Your statement that, “He is a great kid with love and happiness in his heart” certainly does not ring true. He is a kid with serious emotional and behavioral problems who needs to be punished for his wilfull acts.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 460787 on November 17, 2008 at 10:07 a.m.
in response to 361857
I copied the penal code section twice in this thread and I also quoted the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals case supporting my reading.
It is not illegal to refuse to identify yourself to a police officer in Texas unless you have been arrested. It is a crime to give a police officer false information. Read the statute more closely. Section (a) is the only section that deals with failure to identify. Sction (b) is giving false identification.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 715541 on November 17, 2008 at 11:02 a.m.
Dear 460787,
Thank you for you response as you are entitled to your own conclusions and opinion however fallacial or uninformed it may be.
The officer jumped the gun. The student has wore the wrist bands every single day to school without any incident. The officer was out of line as there was no criminal act being committed. The FBI is investigating the incident and this is added weight to the Police Chief's Problems that may need correction. The student walking in the "forbidden hallway" is something faculty deals with and not a criminal act. This was not something that merited a Police Officer intervening and it was definitely something where deadly force is required. The student's grades and conduct throughout this school year back my words.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 237849 on November 17, 2008 at 11:55 a.m.
in response to 715541
The last time I checked, we aren't allowed the option of selecting which rules and regulations we choose to respect or abide by. The police officer has an obligation to enforce all existing rules and regulations as well. Just because we get away with speeding for ten years doesn't mean we aren't guilty when we get caught. See the following:
The Texas Penal Code Sec. 46.01.
DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Club" means an instrument that is specially designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting serious bodily injury or death by striking a person with the instrument, and includes but is not limited to the following:
(A) blackjack;
(B) nightstick;
(C) mace;
(D) tomahawk.
I believe the word you were searching for was fallacious and not "fallacial". From a review of your spelling and grammar, I hope you aren't teaching English. I really question your qualifications for teaching anything else if that's the way you communicate.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 460787 on November 17, 2008 at 12:47 p.m.
in response to 715541
What are you talking about? I assume you have mistaken me for another poster.
Otherwise, I invite yo to explain one fallacy in my posts.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 715541 on November 17, 2008 at 12:51 p.m.
We are talking about an Educational Facility where as an educator, I am really taken back by the fact that School District Employees are mandated to not so much as even touch a student, but a part- time contract security employee can determine at will to taser a student who doesn't bow down before him. Is this the United States of America?
As for the spell check, thanks but no thanks; the English Language is a unique, adaptive and evolving tool of communication. Though colloquial terms and words of rhetoric are used for years without addition to Webster's (recognition) we tend to innovate and implement the applicable as we find applicable. The word intended was fallacial. I am not the first to use it.
Regards
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 460787 on November 17, 2008 at 1:02 p.m.
in response to 715541
You referenced my posts, but did not explain what portion of my posts you thought were problematic or "uninformed".
This happened at a charter school not at a CCISD school.
Give it up on "fallacial" you misused it, but that's not a big deal. Attacking your grammar is an ad hominem argument, a fallacy.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 715541 on November 17, 2008 at 1:28 p.m.
Tell me about the weapon?
Just the facts.
The student is be assessed by you according to what facts and do you know for a fact they are facts?
I know the student and am acquainted with the officer which places me in a position to understand the dynamics you on the other hand are Judging a situation from one opinionated, inaccurate and nonobjective newspaper article without any other basis which by definition makes your argument fallacial or as you would prefer fallacious.
There are inaccuracies which will remain unrevealed as independent investigators have noted and will be used in the sorting process.
If the officer was indeed attacked should not the charge be assault on a peace officer and if the wrist bands were weapons the additional "with a deadly weapon"? The wrist bands were worn with the approval of the faculty and administration and they are in no way against the law worn in the manner the student was wearing them. The student is a non violent person and was not the aggressor in this incident.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 237849 on November 17, 2008 at 1:35 p.m.
in response to 715541
What would be your stance if another child, your child or you were the brunt of this student choosing to use his weapon? I bet it would be totally different if you or yours were physically involved rather than simply being an observer. Were you taken aback when the incident at Columbine occurred? How many "good kids" have been involved in all the incidents of violence in our schools? It sounds as though you want to selectively apply the rules as you see fit. The standards for conduct concerning educators are by necessity different from those of a police officer by the very nature of your training and experience. The stance you're taking in this situation make that patently apparent. As for the evolution of the English language, there are standards involved. Commonly accepted standards apply. The coining of a word does not mean it is acceptable.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 715541 on November 17, 2008 at 2:37 p.m.
As stated previously, the student is non violent. Anything can be used as a weapon but the student has never used the wristbands as a weapon while at school including this recent incident coining them as a weapon. A couple of my children have been assaulted with weapons while at school in CCISD. One was assaulted with a pencil and the whole incident was minimized and in another incident shot in the face with folded up piece of paper shot at high velocity with a rubber band. Another one of my children was pushed off of a rail he should not have been sitting on none the less he received a broken collar bone. In all incidents the acts were never taken seriously as criminal acts and IMO were just kids being kids. The officer on campus could have written a citation in each instance but chose not to due to the dynamics and disposition of the events. So standards do apply but they are applied selectively. I gues it just depends on what your definition of is..................... IS? As far as being a parent, being a parent in a situation such as the one above; would by selected standards place me in the non objective category, would it not?
Furthermore, you wrote, "The standards for conduct concerning educators are by necessity different from those of a police officer by the very nature of your training and experience." and in concurrence I stand. The breaking of rules was not a violation of the law it was a school rule like do not run on the breezeway or no talking or no chewing gum, it is unlike do not enter the restroom of the opposite gender etc etc... It was a rule created for the inadequacy of the Education Structure. The student was not acting in a manner that required the expertise of a law person but in a manner that required the expertise of an educator's discipline and redirection.
Regardless of philosophy, in no way and by no standard should a student be tased for the inadequacy of a building or an adult's deficient people skills, patience or stress level. Displaced frustration has no place around our students.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 333803 on November 17, 2008 at 2:54 p.m.
in response to 463910
This person that is trying to justify the fact that this little idiot was tazed is funny. Even if this kid thought that this grown man on campus was a rival gang member he should have gone to the staff and told them, He knew who he was, he just wanted to buck up to an officer to brag, HE IS AN IDIOT!!! If I was his mom he would want to go to jail then to come home to me. I don't spank my kids but they sure as heck respect me. That kid needs an old school lesson.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 239536 on November 17, 2008 at 3:11 p.m.
in response to 715541
I completely agree with you well said.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 715541 on November 17, 2008 at 3:43 p.m.
"This person that is trying to justify the fact that this little idiot was tazed is funny." Obviously you are referring to me however I am NOT trying to justify a student being tased as you write. On the contrary, the student is in school and should have been disciplined by school faculty and or administrators and not by a frustrated officer displacing his frustrations in his own short tempered way. It is stated, "he should have gone to the staff and told them" the student was requesting to speak to the principal. The officer is required to notify an administrator unless immediate action is required and he did not. The situation did not call for the officer's actions nor for him to neglect involving an Administrator. There was no life or death and the student posed absolutely no threat. I am not here to argue. I have exercised my 1st amendment right and for it some resort to calling me names while others tend to bandwagon against me. I stand by my word. The facts will come out in the end. The FBI is not here because this is an everyday occurrence, we dont paddle students anymore so how can we tase them? Go figure.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 699260 on November 17, 2008 at 3:46 p.m.
in response to 715541
I'm curious...you went into great about the child's history...what of the officer's? Since you know them both...
Sweetie
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 699260 on November 17, 2008 at 3:50 p.m.
in response to 715541
Another question just popped into my head. If you witnessed this attack on the student and watched it escalate, why did you not intervene on the child's behalf?
Sweetie
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 699260 on November 17, 2008 at 3:59 p.m.
in response to 699260
Oops, sorry that should read:
You went into great DETAIL about the child's history
Sorry,
Sweetie
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 715541 on November 17, 2008 at 4:06 p.m.
I said I was acquainted with the Officer. I can tell you he used to work w/ Kleberg County Sheriff and was fed up with a student who he did not the know name of; yet he was fed up with the student? Obviously, he knew the student well enough to be "tired of the student's sh#T" but not the student's name. How long did it take for this phenomenon to occur (for the officer to get "tired of the student's sh#T" )? Certainly it was not long enough for the officer to learn the name of the student by asking another adult or by intelligently listening to the student's peers call the student by name but it WAS long enough for the officer to get "tired of the student's sh#T" and act foolishly out of anger. I wonder how many officers have soiled themselves from being tased as they boast of tasing each other? I wonder does Bryan Smith take an extra change of undies for the tasing party? I wonder if Bryan Smith or David Mendoza have ever soiled themselves from being tased? Whata ya think Sweetie? Chief Smith says, "in this case the taser worked beautifully"!
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 715541 on November 17, 2008 at 4:11 p.m.
The adult's that witnessed the incident have JOBS.
This was addressed in an earlier post, "The adults who work at Cesar Chavez Charter Academy are not in a position to stop the wrongful acts but we can tell the truth when asked"
Here is a response to an event in congruence with the student who was tasered for a minor infraction of a school rule (not a law) and the Average Citizen / Parents who defended themselves against an unlawful arrest (the resultant of pervasive denials of Due Process and Ignorance of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure); a fundamental requisite to the Criminal Prosecution of any Person. Due Process architecture cannot hold the burden if the foundation contains flaws. In the taking of one's LIBERTY there is no room for ignorance. Strict Adherence prevents fallacy in the future and collapse in the end.
Absolutely unforgivable!
Resisting arrest? Arrest for what? When a person hasn't done anything wrong, "resisting" arrest is the proper and TOTALLY LEGAL thing to do and the PROPER response to the use of POWER (force) by Police with a total lack of AUTHORITY!
A "report" of some wrongdoing does not equal a "CRIME," even when the officers get lucky and find the person the report refers to!
Black, white or PURPLE WITH PINK POLKA DOTS, I DON'T CARE! Just because there's reason to believe (report made) a CRIME is being committed in some area DOES NOT give "POLICE" any authority to simply ARREST whoever they happen to run across! What ever happened to, "Hey, You! Who are you and what are you doing here?"
The response, "I live here, what are YOU doing here and why do you ask?" is a PROPER response, whether the Officer involved likes it or not! Apparently the "Galveston Police" aren't aware that they have NO RIGHT WHAT-SO-EVER to simply gather up "whoever" and ARREST them for simply walking around their yard at night, even if someone in the neighborhood has reported some "crime in progress!" As a matter of fact, simply "walking onto private property and detaining" an individual who lives there (making them a defacto owner) for no sure reason makes THEM the "law-breakers!" It's called "trespassing" and Police Officers are NOT EXEMPT FROM THAT RULE, just because they're on duty!
I hope this family gets a good Judge and Jury and breaks it off in the Galveston Police Department. No settlement, MAKE HEADLINES! Maybe a few other "Police Departments" well hear about it and learn there are DISTINCT LIMITATIONS on their authority to arrest...
muffin...
Post a Comment