TX SWAT team beats, deafens nude man in his own home, lies about arrest; judge declines to punish cops or DA

It is hard to tell what was going on in this article (the news is just terrible at covering legal issues generally), but it seems it is discussing his criminal trial only, and further that he got across the board not-guilty verdicts.

In short, if I were his (criminal or civil) lawyer, I would count this as huge a win. Now that the criminal trial is over, and he got all NGs, he will almost certainly bring a 1983 claim (for civil rights violations) against the county/police/whomever. In many states, there are also similar state law causes of action for civil rights violations (Such as in California where I practice, unfortunately I don’t know anything about Texas law). In my experience, police will often file “resisting” types of charges (148 PC, et seq. here in California) because guilt on those issues will often serve to cut off civil liability later during a civil rights lawsuit (this gets a bit complicated, but I’m happy to chat more about it if anyone is interested). Because this fellow was not found guilty of any resisting types of crimes, a civil suit may be a lot less complicated.

In short, this is just the first step on the gentleman’s quest for justice, the civil claim (if he chooses to file one) is where those things will be resolved. In my opinion, this guy couldn’t have hoped for a better judicial outcome from his criminal trial.

To address the boingboing summation briefly:
Malicious prosecution is a civil claim, not a criminal one. Criminal trials are only about resolving the crimes charged against the defendant. There is no possible way for a criminal defendant to bring a malicious prosecution claim against police/prosecution while the criminal trial is ongoing; indeed, it wouldn’t even be in the same courtroom (at least in California).

-Also, the words “malicious prosecution” don’t appear anywhere in that article.


You’re correct. I misspoke. However, the Declaration of Independence is the backbone of our Founders’ thinking…but it is not in the Constitution. Nonetheless, we have many laws on he books (as I outlined) that are supposed to defend us against what happened to this guy.

Further, that portion of the Declaration forms the basis for rights that we accept :

“They view the phrase as embodying protections for economic liberties and supporting
the political belief of limited governmental intrusion. At the same time, many
people view “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as protecting broad natural
rights in addition to the enumerated rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.”


Certainly correcting the offically-sanctioned oppression of minorities will go a long way towards fixing the system, but I really don’t see it as a cure-all. Power corrupts etc. and we have a legal system (not “justice system”) which grants too many people what amounts to unaccountable power.

1 Like

Imagine how much worse it might have been if Texas police had been tipped off that he didn’t have a gun.


Everybody needs to read the ninth amendment:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”


Sure they have an alternative - sticking with law enforcement and not involving themselves with non-crime, non-emercency situations.


I understand why you feel the Brown, Rice and Garner cases would be “co-opted” but in reality, if those who are insensitive to the loss of black lives, perhaps seeing that people just like them are subject to police and prosecutorial misconduct, not to mention the judge’s mishandling, then perhaps the common citizen will push to have these individuals removed from their jobs, charged with crimes, jailed and then fined. Like the Civil Rights Movement, we need people of all colors and faith to join together to first expose and then stop this type of behavior!


RE: Clusterfuck[quote=“silkox1, post:21, topic:48634”]
ETA: sorry, I realize this is a stupidly obvious comment.
Yeah, but it can’t be said enough.

It sounds like the jury already heard both sides, and came to a conclusion that you disagree with.

If you have a compelling alternative to present…?

ETA: this DA sounds like an interesting chap.


ETA 2:

Interesting to play spot the difference with the way this was originally reported:


Please continue, it’s interesting reading. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

1 Like

There is a saying: “Never invite the Man into your life.”

I still don’t know who the hell goes through a SWAT briefing and gears up and no one doesn’t stop and say, “Uh, doesn’t this seem like an over reaction?”


The sort of people who want to be on SWAT teams?


“Can’t hear you, buddy!” (taps riot shield and helmet with billy club) “See you out there, partner. Let’s break some heads!”



People need to think twice even three times before ringing the Police as they seem to be only a phone call away from an over reaction.

1 Like

In short form, it’s an “us versus them” mentality, with prejudice valued as a snap-decision way to pick out “them” from the background noise. “Us” only extends to the tight-knit group.

I would argue that police are not so much racist as highly prejudiced by design, as they are trained to think in slightly paranoiac terms. That is needed in stress situations, but we are seeing more and more how it is also a hinderance in doing their job, in remembering that they are supposed to be neighbours and a part of the community, not an occupying force.


Rather like, um… a big brother?

1 Like

No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

That depends on your definition of “due process.” According to the United States Supreme Court, that doesn’t take much.

Haha. Because only black people need fear the police, right? As long as black people and white people can be kept from working this problem together, there’s a chance to keep the big blue wall in place right where it is, maybe a few federally mandated cosmetic changes. Because it would be awfully inconvenient if the entire system were corrupt beyond repair. Let’s laugh it off instead. Somebody else’s problem!


Texas? This is actually just about any PD jurisdiction in the country. ALL of them juiced up to “fight terrorists” with military grade weapons, and all of it facilitated by the Federal govt. Handing out bearcats and M4 rifles to the Barney Fifes of the law enforcement world.

And it’s a total flight of fancy to imagine that the DOJ will do a goddamn thing to stifle it. It’s pure enablement from Congress and the President on down. Those same people are busy outfitting every federal enforcement agency with the same tactics and weapons as we see in these stories. When Gibson guitars - an established guitar maker - was raided by the FBI and the Fish & Wildlife for illegally sourcing wood, they stormed in with the same SWAT tactics and threats of force.

We’re ALL the law-breaking enemy to these assholes.


Problem with that is that it’ll be you and I paying for it. The cops are effectively shielded from prosecution and the officers in question are protected, defended and relocated to keep their jobs and pensions. The citizens of Missouri City, TX will get get to pay a nice hefty civil award to this poor bastard and the brute squad of assholes and their judicial protectors will go on with no change in behavior.

PDs can’t ever admit wrongdoing or seriously address the systemic abuse of power and authority because jeez, that might mean a departure from the “TOUGH ON CRIME” bullshit rhetoric that always gets rolled out at voting time.

1 Like