It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Video clears Texas man of assaulting cop—did police commit perjury?

page: 1
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 03:37 AM
link   
All I can say is thank goodness for video cameras ! Not the first or last time a video has saved someone from jail time due to a false police report. Visit link for video.. I will avoid comment about the 16 year old stupid kid ...
arstechnica.com...


The police report (PDF) by Deputy Michael Taylor, however, claims Faulkenberry wasn't the victim. Taylor asserts that Faulkenberry attacked a deputy.

"I observed Lawrence Faulkenberry push Sergeant Yost with the left side of his body and elbow into a tree causing him to fall and injure his left shin and right knee cap. I observed Lawrence Faulkenberry to forcefully resist Deputies while attempting to lawfully detain him for officer safety. Deputies detained Lawrence Faulkenberry using the least amount of force necessary to gain compliance from Lawrence Faulkenberry."

But a secret video is closer to Faulkenberry's version of events.

Thirty feet away from the melee was a Samsung home security video camera Faulkenberry had fastened to a utility pole years earlier. It captured police arriving in response to a bogus call from Faulkenberry's 16-year-old son. The teen, angry that his dad had grounded him for problems in school, told police his father was drunk and waving a firearm. The video shows Faulkenberry with his arms raised and no weapon in sight. While the officers begin to handcuff him, one deputy kicks Faulkenberry's leg out from under him, after which Faulkenberry is thrown forcibly to the ground and struck at least once in the back, according to the video.

The video was enough for Caldwell County District Attorney Fred Weber to decline to press charges against Faulkenberry.


edit on 727thk16 by 727Sky because: ..




posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 03:43 AM
link   
shocking. oh wait. no.

this is normal. this is the norm, nothing new. the ones denying this behavior is rampant are only trying to convince themselves.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Hope he sues and wins millions.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 04:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Hope he sues and wins millions.


I would to if it came out of those idiots pay checks and pensions !



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 04:11 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Eventually the people will catch on how much this is costing them.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 06:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: 727Sky

Eventually the people will catch on how much this is costing them.

And there you have it. Until it costs 'them' instead of 'us' ... we have to admit that 'they' got away with it again ... no matter what the stated outcome was.


+3 more 
posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 06:45 AM
link   
This is SOP. Despite what the LEO apologists will come and say. Cops commonly lie on reports to fit their story.

The DA should absolutely charge them all with perjury. But it will never happen. Even in the face of video evidence to the contrary, which is incontrovertible, the police chief will refuse to see it, the prosecutor will refuse to prosecute it, the courts will refuse to hear it. Because they're all in a big three way conflict of interest.

The DA will nol pros it, because if he DOES prosecute, the cops are dead meat. So he doesn't dare touch it. They can't force the DA to charge the cops with perjury, because any prosecution is at his discretion. And he will choose not to, because if he does, the cops will make sure he loses re-election.

And the IA, such as they have any, won't do any investigation because cop. They "bleed blue", and it's not going to happen that they actually do their damned jobs.

And so it will just slide. If a federal prosecutor actually makes it a priority, they'll lose, and then the local taxpayers will foot the bill for the cops' malfeasance, but the individual cops will slide by.

SS, DD.

And then when the community refuses to support them, the cops will get this "who, me?!" look and act like they're being betrayed.

edit on 27-3-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Put his kid away for a week, too. Can you imagine calling the police on your parent because they grounded you? Ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Atsbhct

Yea. The kid moved past grounding with that move.

Its the point where I would contact social services and inform them that the police have volunteered to raise my child for me, and to come pick him up. If the cops don't support me as a parent more than that....they can take the kids when they leave.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Even though it probably wouldn't be taken to court I would go to the state police and file an assault report. Then next time this prosecutor looks to get elected again I would feed ammo to the opposition. Commonwealth and district attorney is an elected position if I remember correctly.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
You know what's funny? The cop that tried to do the leg sweep fell and hurt himself. But Mr. Faulkenberry remained on his feet. It it wasn't for the other cops jumping on his back, he would never have fallen down, even with his hands cuffed behind his back.

Note to police officers: If you don't know how to properly execute a leg sweep, don't try. You'll likely do more damage to yourself than your victim.

This entire ordeal is pathetic. Mr. Faulkenberry's son needs a good old fashioned visit to the woodshed.

-dex



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

The DA should absolutely charge them all with perjury.


Have you bothered to read the Texas criminal law that defines perjury? Didn't think so. Perjury, under Texas law, in Chapter 37 of the Penal Code, requires that the falsehood be made under oath. Police reports are not made under oath. Official misconduct under Chapter 39 would be the appropriate charge, together with a Chapter 22 assault charge.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy
Perjury, under Texas law, in Chapter 37 of the Penal Code, requires that the falsehood be made under oath.


No doubt a contributing factor to the DA's sudden decision to drop the charges, but not charge the officers.

He doesn't dare allow the trial to proceed. However, he's also free to nol pros the officers. Win, win.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 06:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

I have to absolutely agree on the win win... if it went to trial a jury with eyes who viewed the video would convict them on just about anything... just out of spite... IMO.

Edit to add about the title of the article.. The author said perjury instead of calling them lying false report filling POS's.

edit on 727thk16 by 727Sky because: //



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Bedlam

The DA should absolutely charge them all with perjury.


Have you bothered to read the Texas criminal law that defines perjury? Didn't think so. Perjury, under Texas law, in Chapter 37 of the Penal Code, requires that the falsehood be made under oath. Police reports are not made under oath. Official misconduct under Chapter 39 would be the appropriate charge, together with a Chapter 22 assault charge.


Wouldn't it be covered under the states' Filing a False report?



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: StoutBroux

Maybe, but usually that statute applies to a report TO a cop, not a report by a cop.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: F4guy

What about conspiracy to deprive the guy of civil rights under the color of law?

If their false statements agree and are obviously lies, then they must have collaborated.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: F4guy

What about conspiracy to deprive the guy of civil rights under the color of law?


This should be enough to put them away for the rest of THEIR lives.

But not one will be touched. Because...........cop.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
It was just a bad apple.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: F4guy

What about conspiracy to deprive the guy of civil rights under the color of law?

If their false statements agree and are obviously lies, then they must have collaborated.


That statute (18USC 242) has never been used to punish a cop for a false report. It is usually used in excessive force cases. It requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the intent to deprive the victim of a constitutionally or statutorily protected civil right, so you have to show some invidious discrimination. In 30 years of practicing law, I have never seen the feds take a false report case



new topics

top topics



 
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join