Houston terminates contract with CSC immediately after game

[UNT90]

No, you actually haven't. You don't have direct proof that they said don't do it until they tell you. This kid was just decked by security, so wrong yet again.

Who raised this generation? And isn't yours X? Apathetic generation, am I right?

I get it. You are one of those "I know my rights" kinda people. 

When you actually don't. 

Ok.

For sure, but memories. All I'm saying is most of the police officers were cool and understood this was a cool moment for us. I think there's an inherit risk with these contractor security groups that they will not have the proper training to deal with these situations. 

On this we agree. At least about the security companies.

I watch one portly DPD Sgt chase after and grab a couple of the first people out on the field. I think those folks got arrested, but can't remember if they later just let them go or not. 

Point is, don't count on the police to ignore the law. Unless you are expressly invited on the field, don't go. If you do, don't cry like a child when you get tackled and arrested. It may be the consequences for the risk you took.

As long as you are ok with those consequences and don't whine like a little b, more power to you.

Edited December 6, 2015 by UNT90

[oldguystudent]

Amateur lawyering aside, what are other options than CSC?  And are those other options any better? I'd really like to stop laughing in the faces of the yellow jackets as they tell me I can't go say hi to a friend in a section otherwise completely devoid of people.

[Marty]

My son took part in the tee sweep promotion last season. CSC would not let us on the field even though we were with Matt Phillips. Matt finally got so fed up with the situation, he had to call someone to override CSC to allow us access.

same game, about 1:00 left to play, we were leaving & stood in the handicapped area (where no one had been the whole game) to watch the final play, we were quickly reminded by CSC that we couldn't stand there.

[meangreenthirteen]

90, bro, this is the losingest fight in all of your losing fights.  Blaming victims of a beating for getting beaten is not ever gonna fly around rational adults.  It seems you have a tenuous grasp on both the law and your rights as a citizen (read: human being).  Your assertion that police officers (humans) follow the letter of the law to every minute detail is as incorrect as it is ridiculous, and your reps in this thread are a testament to your being on the wrong side of this, socially speaking.

On 12/6/2015 at 11:29 AM, UNT90 said:

As long as you are ok with those consequences and don't whine like a little b, more power to you.

The irony of this statement coming from you is beyond me.  From now on, when you complain about wasting your money or how much our program is a joke and the AD blows yadda yadda, I'm just gonna copy-paste this line from you.  Too good.

[UNTFan23]

34 minutes ago, Ryan Munthe said:

Grand jury indicted your buddy (aka the guy who decked that kid). 

Link to an article.

[VideoEagle]

22 minutes ago, UNTFan23 said:

Link to an article.

Nice find on the article. And I wish more people would use the link in your signature. 

[UNTFan23]

Just now, VideoEagle said:

Nice find on the article. And I wish more people would use the link in your signature. 

I wish people would quit quoting the person I reference in the link in my signature.

[VideoEagle]

1 minute ago, UNTFan23 said:

I wish people would quit quoting the person I reference in the link in my signature.

True! 

[SilverEagle]

On 12/6/2015 at 1:14 AM, UNT90 said:

Your girlfriend committed a criminal offense. If she pulled away from a police officer, she committed another. 

You are lucky you didn't have to bond her out of jail.

Ok, unless you are a licensed peace officer and/or a practicing attorney I'll just have to call these narrowly/rigidly worded statements "just your opinion".  

So which is it?

[Cr1028]

On ‎12‎/‎6‎/‎2015 at 1:14 AM, UNT90 said:

Your girlfriend committed a criminal offense. If she pulled away from a police officer, she committed another. 

You are lucky you didn't have to bond her out of jail.

20 minutes ago, SilverEagle said:

Ok, unless you are a licensed peace officer and/or a practicing attorney I'll just have to call these narrowly/rigidly worded statements "just your opinion".  

 

Edited February 10, 2016 by Cr1028

[UNT90]

1 hour ago, SilverEagle said:

Ok, unless you are a licensed peace officer and/or a practicing attorney I'll just have to call these narrowly/rigidly worded statements "just your opinion".  

So which is it?

Here is a little Texas Penal Code Education for you:

38.03.  RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.

• (b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful.

• (c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

• (d) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the actor uses a deadly weapon to resist the arrest or search

And for those who broke free and ran at the HOD bowl:

38.04.  EVADING ARREST OR DETENTION. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally flees from a person he knows is a peace officer attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him.

 

• (b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is:

• • (1) a state jail felony if:

• • (A) the actor has been previously convicted under this section; or

• • (B) the actor uses a vehicle while the actor is in flight and the actor has not been previously convicted under this section;

• • (2) a felony of the third degree if:

• • (A) the actor uses a vehicle while the actor is in flight and the actor has been previously convicted under this section; or

• • (B) another suffers serious bodily injury as a direct result of an attempt by the officer from whom the actor is fleeing to apprehend the actor while the actor is in flight; or

• • (3) a felony of the second degree if another suffers death as a direct result of an attempt by the officer from whom the actor is fleeing to apprehend the actor while the actor is in flight.

• (c) In this section, "vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 541.201, Transportation Code.

• (d) A person who is subject to prosecution under both this section and another law may be prosecuted under either or both this section and the other law.

 

Feel free to continue this argument with the Texas Penal Code for as long as you like. 

Edited February 10, 2016 by UNT90

[JesseMartin]

8 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

Feel free to continue this argument with the Texas Penal Code for as long as you like. 

Haha.  He said "Penal."

[Army of Dad]

58 minutes ago, SilverEagle said:

Ok, unless you are a licensed peace officer and/or a practicing attorney I'll just have to call these narrowly/rigidly worded statements "just your opinion".  

So which is it?

The Texas Penal Code is written so that any reasonable person can understand it. This isn't some massively wordy federal legislation...

15 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

Here is a little Texas Penal Cide Education for you:

38.03.  RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.

• (b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful.

• (c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

• (d) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the actor uses a deadly weapon to resist the arrest or search

And for those who broke free and ran at the HOD bowl:

38.04.  EVADING ARREST OR DETENTION. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally flees from a person he knows is a peace officer attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him.

 

• (b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is:

• • (1) a state jail felony if:

• • (A) the actor has been previously convicted under this section; or

• • (B) the actor uses a vehicle while the actor is in flight and the actor has not been previously convicted under this section;

• • (2) a felony of the third degree if:

• • (A) the actor uses a vehicle while the actor is in flight and the actor has been previously convicted under this section; or

• • (B) another suffers serious bodily injury as a direct result of an attempt by the officer from whom the actor is fleeing to apprehend the actor while the actor is in flight; or

• • (3) a felony of the second degree if another suffers death as a direct result of an attempt by the officer from whom the actor is fleeing to apprehend the actor while the actor is in flight.

• (c) In this section, "vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 541.201, Transportation Code.

• (d) A person who is subject to prosecution under both this section and another law may be prosecuted under either or both this section and the other law.

 

Feel free to continue this argument with the Texas Penal Code for as long as you like. 

Well then, not much more for me to add.

5 minutes ago, JesseMartin said:

Haha.  He said "Penal."

I was going to link to the penal code and add a remark to check the spelling before making comments, not that it would have done any good.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Army of Dad

[JesseMartin]

2 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

I was going to link to the penal code and add a remark to check the spelling before making comments, not that it would have done any good.

Lack of misspellings leaves me with nothing left to work with but homophones in this particular situation.

[pastorgrant]

"by using force against the peace officer or another."

 

You're just skipping over this point?

[Army of Dad]

2 minutes ago, JesseMartin said:

Lack of misspellings leaves me with nothing left to work with but homophones in this particular situation.

Look here, we will not stand for any levity being added to the weighty matters we are discussing on GMG!

[JesseMartin]

1 minute ago, Army of Dad said:

Look here, we will not stand for any levity being added to the weighty matters we are discussing on GMG!

If they're so weighted, then it might be too hard to levitate them anyway.

[UNT90]

Just now, pastorgrant said:

"by using force against the peace officer or another."

 

You're just skipping over this point?

I don't think you understand the meaning of force. And I also don't think you read the Evading definition. 

People always need the law to read the way they want it to read to justify their own behavior. A lot of defense attorneys make a good living off these people. 

Sadly, that isn't the case.

[pastorgrant]

1 hour ago, UNT90 said:

I don't think you understand the meaning of force. And I also don't think you read the Evading definition. 

People always need the law to read the way they want it to read to justify their own behavior. A lot of defense attorneys make a good living off these people. 

Sadly, that isn't the case.

No, evading arrest is the appropriate law to apply, not resisting arrest, in the case in which someone pulls away from a police officer. 

I understand perfectly what the word "force" means (in this context and otherwise), and I also know what the word "against" means in the phrase, "by using force against the police officer or another."

Interpretation of words, especially as the author intends them, is something I have a degree in and a topic I am published on multiple times. Also, I don't have any interest in skewing anything or justifying anything.

I didn't rush the field at the HOD bowl because I didn't want to break the law. I am not justifying those who broke the law by rushing the field, but I am not justifying those who broke the law through police brutality, either. Everyone needs to obey the law, and that includes police officers.

Edited February 10, 2016 by pastorgrant
fixing a typo

[UNTFan23]

18 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

The Texas Penal Code is written so that any reasonable person can understand it. This isn't some massively wordy federal legislation...

Well then, not much more for me to add.

I was going to link to the penal code and add a remark to check the spelling before making comments, not that it would have done any good.

 

The (former?) CSC employee is not a police officer, therefore he/she cannot place a person under arrest; the best they can attempt to do is detain the individual.  They must call a LEO in to perform an actual (legal) arrest.  It also means a CSC employee isn't allowed to apply any "use of force," so hitting someone in the face is a criminal offense.

I don't see what there is to argue about.

[UNT90]

3 minutes ago, UNTFan23 said:

The (former?) CSC employee is not a police officer, therefore he/she cannot place a person under arrest; the best they can attempt to do is detain the individual.  They must call a LEO in to perform an actual (legal) arrest.  It also means a CSC employee isn't allowed to apply any "use of force," so hitting someone in the face is a criminal offense.

I don't see what there is to argue about.

Neither do I. People shouldn't rush the field when told not to. They are committing a criminal violation. They should expect consequences. 

[JesseMartin]

Just now, UNT90 said:

Neither do I. People shouldn't rush the field when told not to. They are committing a criminal violation. They should expect consequences. 

I can see pretty much all of your points if they're cops.  And if they aren't, then yes, one could still reasonably expect some form of consequences.  But those consequences should not be in excess of the amount of authority granted to personnel.  So getting kicked out, banned, detained, fined, etc., yes.  But when detention isn't possible or likely, beating the crap out of someone isn't a reasonable substitution, especially when the personnel are not police officers and are therefore incapable of charging the attendee with resisting or evading arrest.

Does that summarize what works and doesn't about both sides well enough?

[UNTFan23]

Like getting cold cocked in the face by security?  Gotcha.  And said security guard is now facing his consequences for assaulting someone.

I'll bet the reason UH drop kicked CSC to the curb was they were not willing to risk an altercation between a fan and one of CSC's security employees resulting in a fan being injured. I think it's it fair to say that there is a reasonable expectation that you will not be injured by a CSC employee even if you are breaking a rule, therefore UH and CSC would be liable should a fan be hurt by a CSC employee.

[Aldo]

Sometimes, when no one is looking...I don't use my blinker when I change lanes...

 

[UNT90]

53 minutes ago, pastorgrant said:

No, evading arrest is the appropriate law to apply, not resisting arrest, in the case in which someone pulls away from a police officer. 

I understand perfectly what the word "force" means (in this context and otherwise), and I also know what the word "against" means in the phrase, "by using force against the police officer or another."

Interpretation of words, especially as the author intends them, is something I have a degree in and a topic I am published on multiple times. Also, I don't have any interest in skewing anything or justifying anything.

I didn't rush the field at the HOH bowl because I didn't want to break the law. I am not justifying those who broke the law by rushing the field, but I am not justifying those who broke the law through police brutality, either. Everyone needs to obey the law, and that includes police officers.

Actually, force is what the code defines force as, except, oddly enough, the code does not provide a definition. 

What you do in these situations is not rely on someone with a degree in interpreting words to interpret the full meaning of the law, instead you rely on court decisions that set precedents.

Like Candice Pumphrey vs The State of Texas. Very on point and conviction upheld for resisting arrest for simply pulling away from a police officer. This is what 6th District Texas Court of Appeals had to say about it:

"The essence of Pumphrey's second argument is that one cannot commit the offense of resisting arrest in Texas by just pulling against an officer's effort to physically control him or her, but only by directing force toward the officer.   Though this argument finds some support from some cases, we hold that the statute authorizes a conviction for resisting arrest when the defendant actively pulls against 4 an officer's established grasp of the defendant during an arrest attempt.   We also conclude the statute is satisfied by evidence of jerking against, turning in circles to resist, twisting and squirming to thwart, and struggling against, an officer's efforts to arrest an individual.   For that reason, we affirm Pumphrey's conviction."

So while I respect your degree, I do not respect your opinion on this very specific point of law.

And the Court of Criminal Appeals (The Supreme Court of Texas for Criminal Law) did not hear this case, meaning no further appeal was sought or the CCA refused to hear the case, leaving it as settled law in either instance.

35 minutes ago, UNTFan23 said:

Like getting cold cocked in the face by security?  Gotcha.  And said security guard is now facing his consequences for assaulting someone.

I'll bet the reason UH drop kicked CSC to the curb was they were not willing to risk an altercation between a fan and one of CSC's security employees resulting in a fan being injured. I think it's it fair to say that there is a reasonable expectation that you will not be injured by a CSC employee even if you are breaking a rule, therefore UH and CSC would be liable should a fan be hurt by a CSC employee.

Breaking a law, not a rule.

 

31 minutes ago, Aldo said:

Sometimes, when no one is looking...I don't use my blinker when I change lanes...

 

Me neither. Rebels unite!!!

Edited February 10, 2016 by UNT90