Cop Suspended After Video Emerges Of Brutal Arrests At Teen Pool Party (In McKinney Texas)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if your child had a friend who was a minority, you would not invite that child to a party because there is "potential" trouble inviting that kid to a private pool? See...here is the issue. I do not see what trouble could arise other than some busybody making a comment. Which, if this is my child's friend, I will stand up and respond to. I do not care what color they are. What kind of example are you setting for your child? Keep quiet if one of your friends is treated unjustly? You may be able to live in peace, but your child is the one who is going to have to face her friend everyday in school. And these are just children! No way I would put my own child or her friend through that. Belonging to "the club" is just not that important to me (and I DO belong to a private pool that, thankfully, has a number of AA families).

This is where we part. I don't have a private pool. I don't belong to a private club. I live among many black people, not 'a number of AA families'. Where I stand, it's more important to keep your nose clean and avoid any blemish on your personal record the best way you can. We, the great unwashed, have to keep it real. We don't have lawyers on retainer to deal with potential civil suits from angry moms of allegedly mistreated kids.

I oversee a very diverse group of people at work. Racial conflict is not common, but it surfaces once in a while. Not once have I heard a substantiated claim from a black employee who complained about 'racism'. I have to deal with the fallout, because it's my job. But I want to spare my kid this insanity. Go ahead, judge and label me all you want; it is irrelevant to me. Because my child is a white male, it doesn't matter what he does or doesn't do. When push comes to shove, he will be deemed the root of all evil by default. I have to teach my child to stay away for his own sake. I have seen too many lives practically ruined over false allegations. My child deserves better.

I am the PP here and I respect your honesty. TBH, if you were a parent in my circle, this would break my heart. What you are implictly doing is discouraging your son from having any meaningful social interaction with folks of other backgrounds because of fear about something that likely will not even happen. Your son DOES deserve better - he deserves to be able to have friends based on what type of people they are, shared common interests and genuine friendship. You are burdening him with YOUR prejudices and biases. I am not judging you and you are labelling yourself. You think you are helping your son and saving him from something. I disagree. I think you are denying him an opportunity because of your own issues.

Immendiate PP. I am an immigrant, and a large part of my social circle is the immigrant community. I bet my kid is exposed to more diversity in one day than most kids in McLean in their lifetimes.

What I feel is necessary is explicitly make my son aware of the interracial dynamic we are observing around us. I do my best to keep my bias out of it and let the facts speak for themselves. I don't think I'm denying my son any opportunities. I do want him to take advantage of any opportunity with full understanding that his actions can and will have both intended and unintended consequences. He deserves that knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you people are so naive when it comes to media coverage.
Law enforcement officers have thousands of interactions with the public EVERY DAY.
The vast majority end with no incident.
These don’t get any press coverage because it doesn’t make for good viewership/readership.
The few incidents cited here are not the norm.
[/b]Yes, when police officers act badly, they should be held accountable.
But, once again, there are people who are condemning most law enforcement officers for actions of a VERY SMALL MINORITY.
As a result, we have many youth and young adults who are uncooperative and outright disrespectful and this behavior is excused and in some cases, applauded by way too many people.[b]

Totally agree with this. The girl did not deserve the brutality from the police officer. He completely overreacted and was in the wrong in this case, but I also don't know why people think it's okay to mouth-off to authority, particularly the police. The cop was obviously highly-stressed and ill-prepared to handle the situation. However, people of every color need to sit down and be quiet when an officer tells you to do something. Or walk away like he told her to do. Period. He's got a gun. It's a highly stressful situation. It could escalate into something much more tragic quickly.

You know I do agree with you for the most part. The problem I have is that people are imputing adult standards of maturity to a girl who just finished the 8th grade. In this situation, the profesionally trained adult was supposed to be the mature one. I am not excusing the mouthing off. If I were her parent, we WOULD discuss that. But she was complying with his command, a mature adult lets the comment go as long as she was doing what he ordered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about the race or SES of anybody in this situation, I just think everybody that was part of the problem should have consequences.

How do you know which kids deserve which consequences (and what consequences)? Some of the kids had passes and did nothing wrong by going to the pool. Some apparently came to the general area, but didn't enter the pool with or without permission. Some seem to have jumped the fence to the pool. I don't see where members of the first two groups deserve any consequences given they were simply caught up in a larger event. But, if I accept that the members of the third group deserve consequences, can they even be identified? If so, what is the consequence for jumping a fence to a pool? Basically, that's the sort of thing that normally gets you a stern talking to.

I don't but that is the job of investigators. There is an investigation.
Of course, kids that were invited would not have consequences, unless they assaulted somebody.
Jumping the fence ... not really much you can do about that, maybe let parents know so they can deal with their own child, I would want to know. I work and if my teen is getting in trouble while I am working, maybe he needs to work too.
Organizing a flash party, there should be some consequence, not sure of the laws in TX, maybe a fine and some community service.

I just think there should be a consequence for organizing a flash party and assaulting people.

What teen assaulted someone?

It is in some of the videos. There are several videos you know, not just the one.

I saw a video of a girl in a fight with 2 woman. All accounts I have read said the grown woman assaulted the girl. The video does not show the beginning of the fight - so seeing them being separated does not prove WHO INSTIGATED THE TUSSLE. Understand how that works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about the race or SES of anybody in this situation, I just think everybody that was part of the problem should have consequences.

How do you know which kids deserve which consequences (and what consequences)? Some of the kids had passes and did nothing wrong by going to the pool. Some apparently came to the general area, but didn't enter the pool with or without permission. Some seem to have jumped the fence to the pool. I don't see where members of the first two groups deserve any consequences given they were simply caught up in a larger event. But, if I accept that the members of the third group deserve consequences, can they even be identified? If so, what is the consequence for jumping a fence to a pool? Basically, that's the sort of thing that normally gets you a stern talking to.

I don't but that is the job of investigators. There is an investigation.
Of course, kids that were invited would not have consequences, unless they assaulted somebody.
Jumping the fence ... not really much you can do about that, maybe let parents know so they can deal with their own child, I would want to know. I work and if my teen is getting in trouble while I am working, maybe he needs to work too.
Organizing a flash party, there should be some consequence, not sure of the laws in TX, maybe a fine and some community service.

I just think there should be a consequence for organizing a flash party and assaulting people.

What teen assaulted someone?

It is in some of the videos. There are several videos you know, not just the one.

Please link to a video of a teen (who was not assualted first) assaulting someone during this incident.

[Anonymous]

I am also questioning the descriptions of this as a mob scene" or "highly stressful and chaotic."

The other officers were perfectly calm and were even talking calmly to some of the kids. A bunch of fat old men were milling around the lawn, just hanging out, wandering. No one looked particularly stressed.

The only one I saw out of control there was Casebolt who really appeared to make his own problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plus, if it is not illegal to run your mouth, why did Casebolt grab the girl? Please to explain!?

Actually, most of us are baffled. Casebolt is the one who needs to explain. His boss described his actions as "indefensible" so I imagine there wasn't a very good reason.

Sure, maybe we know that now. But a boss (chief) should not publicly admonish a person before they know the facts. It was irresponsible of the chief, it ended up being in his favor, but he did not know that when he made those statements.

Huh? I am sure that he spoke to other officers on the scence before he made that statement. Come on!

Y'all talk about accoutability, but want to absolve this guy and blame other people for his actions.

Is that your definition of "investigation". UGH! I did not absolve the guy, i think in general law enforcement need to do investigations before making statements to the media.

Well, the chief felt that he had enough info to make that statement. Because he said something that criticized the officer's actions, they did not conduct a proper investigation? I am sure that he knew far more facts than we know - including Casebolt's thoughts and how his fellow officers assessed the incident. What else is there to investigate? Honest question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you people are so naive when it comes to media coverage.
Law enforcement officers have thousands of interactions with the public EVERY DAY.
The vast majority end with no incident.
These don’t get any press coverage because it doesn’t make for good viewership/readership.
The few incidents cited here are not the norm.
[/b]Yes, when police officers act badly, they should be held accountable.
But, once again, there are people who are condemning most law enforcement officers for actions of a VERY SMALL MINORITY.
As a result, we have many youth and young adults who are uncooperative and outright disrespectful and this behavior is excused and in some cases, applauded by way too many people.

Totally agree with this. The girl did not deserve the brutality from the police officer. He completely overreacted and was in the wrong in this case, but I also don't know why people think it's okay to mouth-off to authority, particularly the police. The cop was obviously highly-stressed and ill-prepared to handle the situation. However, people of every color need to sit down and be quiet when an officer tells you to do something. [b]Or walk away like he told her to do. Period. He's got a gun. It's a highly stressful situation. It could escalate into something much more tragic quickly.

Oh.my.god.

SHE WAS WALKING AWAY LIKE HE TOLD HER TO DO.

When I say walk away, I mean turn yourself around with your mouth shut and completely leave the area where the cop is. I don't mean repeatedly turn back and mouth-off to the officer.
Again I didn't say she deserved the brutality. But I also think for everyone's safety it's imperative to do as your told in a high-stress situation like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plus, if it is not illegal to run your mouth, why did Casebolt grab the girl? Please to explain!?

Actually, most of us are baffled. Casebolt is the one who needs to explain. His boss described his actions as "indefensible" so I imagine there wasn't a very good reason.

Sure, maybe we know that now. But a boss (chief) should not publicly admonish a person before they know the facts. It was irresponsible of the chief, it ended up being in his favor, but he did not know that when he made those statements.

Huh? I am sure that he spoke to other officers on the scence before he made that statement. Come on!

Y'all talk about accoutability, but want to absolve this guy and blame other people for his actions.

Is that your definition of "investigation". UGH! I did not absolve the guy, i think in general law enforcement need to do investigations before making statements to the media.

Well, the chief felt that he had enough info to make that statement. Because he said something that criticized the officer's actions, they did not conduct a proper investigation? I am sure that he knew far more facts than we know - including Casebolt's thoughts and how his fellow officers assessed the incident. What else is there to investigate? Honest question.

or the chief needed to say something in support of the teens to quiet the masses. Do you know why he made that statement? I question his motive.

I would say that an investigator should questions everybody (not just a few cops), collect all evidence (video at the pool if there is some for example), talk to staff at the pool, talk to the teens, write a report, this is usually reviewed by a supervisor. It is presented to the prosecutors office if there is something to charge, it is sometimes referred to internal affairs (do you think internal affairs has already done their investigation). Are you saying all that was done in the time the party happened to the time there were statements made to the media?

Talk about not following procedure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you people are so naive when it comes to media coverage.
Law enforcement officers have thousands of interactions with the public EVERY DAY.
The vast majority end with no incident.
These don’t get any press coverage because it doesn’t make for good viewership/readership.
The few incidents cited here are not the norm.
[/b]Yes, when police officers act badly, they should be held accountable.
But, once again, there are people who are condemning most law enforcement officers for actions of a VERY SMALL MINORITY.
As a result, we have many youth and young adults who are uncooperative and outright disrespectful and this behavior is excused and in some cases, applauded by way too many people.

Totally agree with this. The girl did not deserve the brutality from the police officer. He completely overreacted and was in the wrong in this case, but I also don't know why people think it's okay to mouth-off to authority, particularly the police. The cop was obviously highly-stressed and ill-prepared to handle the situation. However, people of every color need to sit down and be quiet when an officer tells you to do something. [b]Or walk away like he told her to do. Period. He's got a gun. It's a highly stressful situation. It could escalate into something much more tragic quickly.

Oh.my.god.

SHE WAS WALKING AWAY LIKE HE TOLD HER TO DO.

When I say walk away, I mean turn yourself around with your mouth shut and completely leave the area where the cop is. I don't mean repeatedly turn back and mouth-off to the officer.
Again I didn't say she deserved the brutality. But I also think for everyone's safety it's imperative to do as your told in a high-stress situation like that.

Really? Because when I say "walk away" what I mean is walk away from the area. "Keep your mouth shut" is another instruction and "completely leave the area" is only possible if the cop who instructed you to "get your ass out of here" doesn't then physically drag you back to the area you were trying to leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plus, if it is not illegal to run your mouth, why did Casebolt grab the girl? Please to explain!?

Actually, most of us are baffled. Casebolt is the one who needs to explain. His boss described his actions as "indefensible" so I imagine there wasn't a very good reason.

Sure, maybe we know that now. But a boss (chief) should not publicly admonish a person before they know the facts. It was irresponsible of the chief, it ended up being in his favor, but he did not know that when he made those statements.

Huh? I am sure that he spoke to other officers on the scence before he made that statement. Come on!

Y'all talk about accoutability, but want to absolve this guy and blame other people for his actions.

Is that your definition of "investigation". UGH! I did not absolve the guy, i think in general law enforcement need to do investigations before making statements to the media.

Well, the chief felt that he had enough info to make that statement. Because he said something that criticized the officer's actions, they did not conduct a proper investigation? I am sure that he knew far more facts than we know - including Casebolt's thoughts and how his fellow officers assessed the incident. What else is there to investigate? Honest question.

or the chief needed to say something in support of the teens to quiet the masses. Do you know why he made that statement? I question his motive.

I would say that an investigator should questions everybody (not just a few cops), collect all evidence (video at the pool if there is some for example), talk to staff at the pool, talk to the teens, write a report, this is usually reviewed by a supervisor. It is presented to the prosecutors office if there is something to charge, it is sometimes referred to internal affairs (do you think internal affairs has already done their investigation). Are you saying all that was done in the time the party happened to the time there were statements made to the media?

Talk about not following procedure.

I do not know what info gathering was done and neither do you. The head of the department (with more access to info than we have) said the actions were unwarranted, the union has not defended the actions and the officer himself has issued an apology.

So you are saying that a full investigation of the entire incident needs to be conducted before the chief should speak on the conduct of one officer? Maybe so. If the department did anything improper in its "investigation," I am sure we will hear from the officer AND the union at some point. So far, neither has complained about that.

[Anonymous]

The question was asked but not answered. What were the indications that the cop's misbehavior was racially motivated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plus, if it is not illegal to run your mouth, why did Casebolt grab the girl? Please to explain!?

Actually, most of us are baffled. Casebolt is the one who needs to explain. His boss described his actions as "indefensible" so I imagine there wasn't a very good reason.

Sure, maybe we know that now. But a boss (chief) should not publicly admonish a person before they know the facts. It was irresponsible of the chief, it ended up being in his favor, but he did not know that when he made those statements.

Huh? I am sure that he spoke to other officers on the scence before he made that statement. Come on!

Y'all talk about accoutability, but want to absolve this guy and blame other people for his actions.

Is that your definition of "investigation". UGH! I did not absolve the guy, i think in general law enforcement need to do investigations before making statements to the media.

Well, the chief felt that he had enough info to make that statement. Because he said something that criticized the officer's actions, they did not conduct a proper investigation? I am sure that he knew far more facts than we know - including Casebolt's thoughts and how his fellow officers assessed the incident. What else is there to investigate? Honest question.

or the chief needed to say something in support of the teens to quiet the masses. Do you know why he made that statement? I question his motive.

I would say that an investigator should questions everybody (not just a few cops), collect all evidence (video at the pool if there is some for example), talk to staff at the pool, talk to the teens, write a report, this is usually reviewed by a supervisor. It is presented to the prosecutors office if there is something to charge, it is sometimes referred to internal affairs (do you think internal affairs has already done their investigation). Are you saying all that was done in the time the party happened to the time there were statements made to the media?

Talk about not following procedure.

I do not know what info gathering was done and neither do you. The head of the department (with more access to info than we have) said the actions were unwarranted, the union has not defended the actions and the officer himself has issued an apology.

So you are saying that a full investigation of the entire incident needs to be conducted before the chief should speak on the conduct of one officer? Maybe so. If the department did anything improper in its "investigation," I am sure we will hear from the officer AND the union at some point. So far, neither has complained about that.

Actually the police chief made a statement that a full investigation was not done and that it has been referred to internal affairs.

I think it is prudent for the chief to say that the officer is on administrative leave and that there is an investigation underway. It is not okay to have a judgement before there is an investigation.

Actually it is proper for the union not to speak until a full investigation is done, though they issued a statement that the police officer was receiving death threats and is at an undisclosed location.

They department did not do anything improper in their investigation because there was no investigation done yet. (as stated by the chief in his last address to the media)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The question was asked but not answered. What were the indications that the cop's misbehavior was racially motivated?

People have been answering this throughout the thread and people referred to the interview with the White kid who filmed the whole thing. There were White kids in the crowd of kids, yet he only attempted to detain the AA kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The question was asked but not answered. What were the indications that the cop's misbehavior was racially motivated?

He wasn't yelling at or pulling the hair of or sitting on or pulling his gun on any of the white kids. Without any investigation, he treated every black kid as a dangerous criminal suspect and every white person as an innocent victim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you people are so naive when it comes to media coverage.
Law enforcement officers have thousands of interactions with the public EVERY DAY.
The vast majority end with no incident.
These don’t get any press coverage because it doesn’t make for good viewership/readership.
The few incidents cited here are not the norm.
[/b]Yes, when police officers act badly, they should be held accountable.
But, once again, there are people who are condemning most law enforcement officers for actions of a VERY SMALL MINORITY.
As a result, we have many youth and young adults who are uncooperative and outright disrespectful and this behavior is excused and in some cases, applauded by way too many people.

Totally agree with this. The girl did not deserve the brutality from the police officer. He completely overreacted and was in the wrong in this case, but I also don't know why people think it's okay to mouth-off to authority, particularly the police. The cop was obviously highly-stressed and ill-prepared to handle the situation. However, people of every color need to sit down and be quiet when an officer tells you to do something. [b]Or walk away like he told her to do. Period. He's got a gun. It's a highly stressful situation. It could escalate into something much more tragic quickly.

Oh.my.god.

SHE WAS WALKING AWAY LIKE HE TOLD HER TO DO.

When I say walk away, I mean turn yourself around with your mouth shut and completely leave the area where the cop is. I don't mean repeatedly turn back and mouth-off to the officer.
Again I didn't say she deserved the brutality. But I also think for everyone's safety it's imperative to do as your told in a high-stress situation like that.

Really? Because when I say "walk away" what I mean is walk away from the area. "Keep your mouth shut" is another instruction and "completely leave the area" is only possible if the cop who instructed you to "get your ass out of here" doesn't then physically drag you back to the area you were trying to leave.

Oh boy. I'm pretty sure if an officer tells you to get your ass out of here, it goes without saying that you should keep your mouth shut and leave as soon as possible. I understand he did drag her back after she ran her mouth. Totally inexcusable, BUT, we also have to respect authority and not mouth-off, particularly in a high-stress situation like this.