Man Beaten By Police In Fort Worth Texas

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='StColette' post='1907174' date='Jul 1 2009, 12:25 PM']According to police reports and Gibson's sister (Gibson is the man in the hospital) the police are the ones who made sure Gibson got to the hospital. They called for an ambulance. Gibson didn't wake up the next morning and go himself. So he didn't wake up with a headache the next morning and go himself. The police saw that he was in need of medical attention and so they called an ambulance. They kept him talking and awake just in case he had an concussion.

If the articles and witnesses that Cmom posted are correct then the injury resulted not from brute force but seemed to occur when the police were bringing him to the ground, possibly for his own safety we don't know for sure. Accidentally banging someone's head into something can happen. Micah has dipped me before and banged my head right into a dinning room chair. I've play wrestled with one of my nieces and accidentally banged her head into a indoor ceramic flower pot. It wasn't my intention to bang my niece's head into the flower pot, and I probably should have been more careful about the surroundings, but it doesn't mean I did it on purpose. If the police officers purposely banged the guy's head into the step, yes that's very wrong.[/quote]
I didn't say he woke up the next morning with a headache. The fact that an ambulance had to be called was exactly my point.


[quote name='picchick' post='1907188' date='Jul 1 2009, 12:44 PM']I am referring to the case and I could care less that he was found guilty and sentenced to propation. I know he was. Is that suppose to make things any better? What he got was a slap on the hand. Now he is out there in the world with the protection of this cop friends. Anyone else and you know they would go to jail for assualt and battery.[/quote]

[StColette]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907205' date='Jul 1 2009, 02:35 PM']I didn't say he woke up the next morning with a headache. The fact that an ambulance had to be called was exactly my point.[/quote]

Sry my mistake. But usually when one refers to a hangover headache it's usually the next morning that one occurs.

[franciscanheart]

i think that was my mistake. i should have been more clear. my point was that there had to be some indicator that this man needed immediate attention. it was obvious to me that if he were in the intensive care unit something like 8 hours after the incident occurred (about the time that i first got news of it) that he had probably not gone home and woken up with a headache.

[franciscanheart]

just a few snippets i'm pulling from the article cmom posted:

[quote]But in an earlier official statement, police said they encountered hostile, argumentative drunks, some of whom "made sexually explicit movements" (my imagination runs wild) toward the officers. One young patron allegedly "assaulted [a] TABC agent by grabbing the TABC agent's groin."[/quote]


[quote]OK, hold on. First, witnesses say the officers showed up ready to make arrests, their fists full of plastic zip-cuffs.

"They were hyped up. They were loaded for bear," said Todd Camp, a veteran journalist who was there celebrating his birthday with friends. "They were just randomly grabbing people, telling them they were drunk."

Camp told me he has been in bars during TABC/police "checks" before, "and it was never anything like this." Usually, he said, officers discreetly walk through, looking for anybody who has had too much. This was different.[/quote]
This is what initially caused me to react poorly to this incident. Usually, raids and checks are very different. I've never been involved in a raid but I've seen more than a handful of checks.


[quote]But there are flat contradictions about how Chad Gibson was injured. The Dallas Voice reported Monday that Gibson is hospitalized with bleeding around his brain.

"He was taken down hard," said Camp, with "four or five" officers wrestling him to the floor inside the club.

Cellphone photos shot by patrons and posted to blogs show a person being held facedown by officers in a short hallway inside the club, then show a dent in the wall where his head was apparently banged.

But a Fort Worth police spokesman told me Gibson was injured outside, when he fell and struck his head because he was so drunk.

"He was the one that groped the TABC agent," said Sgt. Pedro Criado. "He was injured by falling and hitting his head."

When I asked Sgt. Criado how he identified Gibson as the "groper," he said he was reading from a police report filed by cops on the scene. I asked for further details, but he said I'd have to file a Freedom of Information request.[/quote]
point number one: it was a TABC agent that was allegedly groped, not a police officer.

point number two: there are many people who have said the incident happened inside and that he was being handled inappropriately. only the cops are saying he was injured outside. (the video clip which i watched but did not listen to (don't listen to things at work) showed them inside the bar, not outside of it.)

point number three: officers are claiming that this guy groped him but won't give details. sounds like an easy cover-up. obviously i can't decide if these guys are guilty, i'm just pointing out some crappy circumstances.

the longer we pretend like things like this don't happen, the worse off we'll all be. and the longer we take a certain side simply because it's more comfortable, the more injustice will occur.

this reminds me of a story that unfolded here on monday. (or was it tuesday?) a man was running from the police and he ran all over the city in his car for something like an hour and a half. it ended with a fatal crash involving an innocent driver. the reason this man was allowed to run wild for so long was because there are laws in place which prevent police from ramming cars. one cop car had to back off in order to avoid hitting him (and having that brought against him) and he managed to run for another ten minutes or so. ridiculous.

so, i don't know what should have happened, what will happen, what should happen. all i know is that this particular case sounds fishy and disturbing.

[StColette]

For those who are interested. There's an update on the Mr. Gibson. Recent scans show that the clot has stopped growing. Doctors seem to think surgery may not be necessary to remove the clot and that it will likely dissolve and be reabsorbed into the body.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907218' date='Jul 1 2009, 03:05 PM']just a few snippets i'm pulling from the article cmom posted:





This is what initially caused me to react poorly to this incident. Usually, raids and checks are very different. I've never been involved in a raid but I've seen more than a handful of checks.



point number one: it was a TABC agent that was allegedly groped, not a police officer.

point number two: there are many people who have said the incident happened inside and that he was being handled inappropriately. only the cops are saying he was injured outside. (the video clip which i watched but did not listen to (don't listen to things at work) showed them inside the bar, not outside of it.)

point number three: officers are claiming that this guy groped him but won't give details. sounds like an easy cover-up. obviously i can't decide if these guys are guilty, i'm just pointing out some crappy circumstances.

the longer we pretend like things like this don't happen, the worse off we'll all be. and the longer we take a certain side simply because it's more comfortable, the more injustice will occur.

this reminds me of a story that unfolded here on monday. (or was it tuesday?) a man was running from the police and he ran all over the city in his car for something like an hour and a half. it ended with a fatal crash involving an innocent driver. the reason this man was allowed to run wild for so long was because there are laws in place which prevent police from ramming cars. one cop car had to back off in order to avoid hitting him (and having that brought against him) and he managed to run for another ten minutes or so. ridiculous.

so, i don't know what should have happened, what will happen, what should happen. all i know is that this particular case sounds fishy and disturbing.[/quote]


I don't understand, you are upset that this guy in dallas got a concussion while resisting police, but also up set that police can't ram cars? I am not trying to be obtuse , I jsut don't understand. Do you think the police should be able to use more force ( ramming cars) or be required to use less force?

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1907225' date='Jul 1 2009, 02:12 PM']I don't understand, you are upset that this guy in dallas got a concussion while resisting police, but also up set that police can't ram cars? I am not trying to be obtuse , I jsut don't understand. Do you think the police should be able to use more force ( ramming cars) or be required to use less force?[/quote]
I'm glad you understand.


What I'm saying is simply that I do not disagree with necessary force. However, I think necessary force can be stretched a little too far sometimes in order to protect police officers who may have gotten a little caught up in the moment and/or who made poor decisions.

To me, cutting off that car that was being ridiculous and endangering the lives of people across the city could be considered necessary force. That man ended up dying. If they would have taken a little more of an aggressive position towards stopping that man, I think a lot of people would have been better off. He looped the city several times before T-boning a pickup. Thankfully only the runaway felon was the one who got seriously hurt. (And actually, I take back the whole died thing. I think I remember now that he was listed in critical condition. There just weren't any lights or sirens when they left the scene of the crash.)

I do not believe, however, that such drastic measures should be tolerated when it is not a life-threatening situation. There are laws here that prevent police from going on high-speed chases in certain situations. I think that's a good law.

[StColette]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907230' date='Jul 1 2009, 03:21 PM']To me, cutting off that car that was being ridiculous and endangering the lives of people across the city could be considered necessary force. That man ended up dying. If they would have taken a little more of an aggressive position towards stopping that man, I think a lot of people would have been better off. He looped the city several times before T-boning a pickup. Thankfully only the runaway felon was the one who got seriously hurt. (And actually, I take back the whole died thing. I think I remember now that he was listed in critical condition. There just weren't any lights or sirens when they left the scene of the crash.)[/quote]


But didn't you say that there are laws saying that the police can't ram cars? So are you saying that the police should have broken the law and rammed the car?

[franciscanheart]

No. I didn't say ram. I said "cut off."

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907230' date='Jul 1 2009, 03:21 PM'] I'm glad you understand.


What I'm saying is simply that I do not disagree with necessary force. However, I think necessary force can be stretched a little too far sometimes in order to protect police officers who may have gotten a little caught up in the moment and/or who made poor decisions.

To me, cutting off that car that was being ridiculous and endangering the lives of people across the city could be considered necessary force. That man ended up dying. If they would have taken a little more of an aggressive position towards stopping that man, I think a lot of people would have been better off. He looped the city several times before T-boning a pickup. Thankfully only the runaway felon was the one who got seriously hurt. (And actually, I take back the whole died thing. I think I remember now that he was listed in critical condition. There just weren't any lights or sirens when they left the scene of the crash.)

I do not believe, however, that such drastic measures should be tolerated when it is not a life-threatening situation. There are laws here that prevent police from going on high-speed chases in certain situations. I think that's a good law. [/quote]


So y ou want police to use good judgement in the use of police power.

I think everyone would agree with that.

The problem is police are just human and they make mistakes like any human. I think that the use of excessive force when in a confrintation is very hard to regulate, no one knows what the cop felt was at stake, perhaps he did feel his life was in danger.

I think there should be laws in place to restrict police action. however, once one is involved in a confrintation with the police one must realize they are probably not going to minimize the use of force. Either submit, or prepare to be hurt, or, I suppose, prepare to become an outlaw.

[StColette]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907241' date='Jul 1 2009, 03:30 PM']No. I didn't say ram. I said "cut off."[/quote]

Oops, sorry. I had read your post about the traffic incident which said "ram" and then the other one and just combined them. My apologies

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1907252' date='Jul 1 2009, 02:40 PM']So you want police to use good judgement in the use of police power.

I think everyone would agree with that.[/quote]
I would hope so.


[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1907252' date='Jul 1 2009, 02:40 PM']The problem is police are just human and they make mistakes like any human. I think that the use of excessive force when in a confrintation is very hard to regulate, no one knows what the cop felt was at stake, perhaps he did feel his life was in danger.[/quote]
Or he was just peeved that he had supposedly been touched inappropriately.


[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1907252' date='Jul 1 2009, 02:40 PM']I think there should be laws in place to restrict police action. however, once one is involved in a confrintation with the police one must realize they are probably not going to minimize the use of force. Either submit, or prepare to be hurt, or, I suppose, prepare to become an outlaw.[/quote]
Sad but true, I guess. But then of course I would hope there would be something in place to handle these situations when they got out of hand. Something's gotta give. (That was mentioned in one of the articles that cmom posted: We don't think you're all bad guys; we do, however, want to know that when something like this happens, there is a process for dealing with it that is fair to everyone involved.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1906533' date='Jun 30 2009, 05:06 PM']if this had been a priest, would you be reacting differently?[/quote]

To lay violent hands on a cleric is sacrilegious.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Resurrexi

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='StColette' post='1907253' date='Jul 1 2009, 02:42 PM']Oops, sorry. I had read your post about the traffic incident which said "ram" and then the other one and just combined them. My apologies [/quote]
Yeah they kept mentioning during the chase that it was against policy to ram this car that was all over the place. At one point they threw spike strips ... at ... the car. The way it happened it would have been nearly impossible, I think, to not have either gotten multiple cars with the spikes or to have him hit the strip at all. It was all together ridiculous.

It's just frustrating to watch something like that unfold for an hour and then to hear about something just the next town over happening to a seemingly innocent bar patron.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='StColette' post='1907080' date='Jul 1 2009, 10:29 AM']Laura, you're really crossing the line here. How dare you! Just because I don't agree with you and your side doesn't mean I hate gay people. I'll be taking this up with Dust.[/quote]
My apologies for offending you. It was a joke.

[StColette]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907333' date='Jul 1 2009, 04:31 PM']My apologies for offending you. It was a joke.[/quote]

I accept your apology. Even if it was a joke, I don't think it was at all appropriate nor was it clear that you were joking. For the sake of it not happening again, I wouldn't accuse people of hating someone or a group, even if joking.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='StColette' post='1907353' date='Jul 1 2009, 03:41 PM']I accept your apology. Even if it was a joke, I don't think it was at all appropriate nor was it clear that you were joking. For the sake of it not happening again, I wouldn't accuse people of hating someone or a group, even if joking.[/quote]
You're right. Looking back I see where that was in poor taste. It wasn't meant to offend you though I certainly see where it would. Again, I was wrong.

And to everyone else, thanks for entertaining me while I played devil's advocate. That was surprisingly tough!

[StColette]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1907267' date='Jul 1 2009, 03:52 PM']To lay violent hands on a cleric is sacrilegious.[/quote]

Yes, that's part of Canon Law as well as a decree from one of the Councils (which one it was escapes me right now) but if a priest is physically harming someone and the priest is in the wrong that person has the right to defend themselves. If a priest started beating up on a police officer unjustly then the priest is in the wrong and the police officer would be able to use force. The Church teaches that we may use self defense in order to defend ourselves or those around us, that means even if the attacker is a priest or religious. I would hope a priest would not physically attack someone unless in self defense or defense of an innocent.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='picchick' post='1907188' date='Jul 1 2009, 01:44 PM']I am referring to the case and I could care less that he was found guilty and sentenced to propation. I know he was. Is that suppose to make things any better? What he got was a slap on the hand. Now he is out there in the world with the protection of this cop friends. Anyone else and you know they would go to jail for assualt and battery.[/quote]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, easy there - I said NOTHING about that making things any better. I was merely setting the record straight about what happened and emphasizing the importance of the video in getting the truth out.

[franciscanheart]

[size=5][b]UPDATE[/b][/size]

[color="red"]Note: I am providing the link to this article for citation purposes. The site claims itself to be "the premier media source for LBGT north texas. Please do not follow the link if you do not want to see related content. I've posted the full article here so you need not click through unless you want to.[/color]

[url="http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publish/article_11584.php"]TABC chief apologizes[/url]
Administrator Steen acknowledges his agents violated policies, says FW supervisor has stepped down

FORT WORTH — The administrator of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said this week that two TABC agents involved in a raid of the Rainbow Lounge on June 28 committed multiple “clear violations” of agency policy.

In an exclusive phone interview with Dallas Voice on Wednesday, July 15, TABC Administrator Alan Steen also said the supervisor directly responsible for the two agents — a sergeant in TABC’s Fort Worth district office — announced his retirement last week in the wake of the raid and amid an ongoing internal investigation. Steen didn’t identify the sergeant or the agents by name.

>> Listen to audio of the interview with Alan Steen here.

“I don’t think you have to dig very deep to figure out that TABC has violated some of their policies,” Steen said. “We know that, and I apologize for that. Like I said in my original press release, we have in the past and we will in the future act very swiftly in making sure that those issues are corrected. It’s real clear that however it is that we were doing business that night is not the typical TABC. ... I have good policy in place, I have good training in place, and I have good supervision in place to ensure that things like this don’t happen.”

Steen said if the two agents, who are on desk duty pending the outcome of the investigation, sought approval from the supervisor before the Rainbow Lounge inspection, it shouldn’t have been granted. The agents were accompanied by six Fort Worth police officers.

Steen said he doesn’t think there was sufficient cause for the inspection, which apparently was based on the fact that one person had been arrested for public intoxication at the Rainbow Lounge on Thursday, June 25. Steen also indicated that the eight law enforcement officers and the paddy wagon that were present likely constituted an excessive show of force.

“You can read that policy and you can figure out really quickly, TABC shouldn’t have even been there,” Steen said. “If our guys would have followed the beaver dam policy, we wouldn’t even have been there. … We have these conversations all the time, and we don’t participate in those kinds of inspections when there’s not probable cause or reasonable suspicion or some public safety matter to be inspected.”

Steen added that the agents also shouldn’t have been wearing “special events uniforms,” which are prohibited during bar inspections. TABC agents typically conduct bar inspections in plain clothes.

The TABC agents and Fort Worth officers went into the Rainbow Lounge at 651 S. Jennings at about 1:30 a.m. that Sunday morning.

The raid, which has made national headlines in recent weeks, occurred on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, a police raid of a gay bar in New York City that’s credited with launching the modern-day gay rights movement.

The Rainbow Lounge raid left one man seriously injured and has prompted a huge outcry from the LGBT community in North Texas, with activists alleging that it was a case of anti-gay discrimination and harrasment by law enforcement.

TABC and the Fort Worth Police Department are conducting separate internal investigations, both of which are expected to be reviewed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Patrons who were in the Rainbow Lounge at the time, said the officers seemed to pick individuals at random, using zip ties to handcuff them as they were arrested for public intoxication. Witnesses said the officers from both agencies treated several people very roughly, and 26-year-old Chad Gibson was taken by ambulance to JPS Hospital, where he was treated in the intensive care unit for bleeding in his brain.

Steen said he expects TABC’s internal investigation of the raid to be completed in the next few weeks, and he plans to release the results during a press conference in Fort Worth. He said investigators have been working to interview witnesses but are having difficulty determining who saw the raid firsthand and who is basing their accounts on hearsay.

“We need to hear from those who saw firsthand what happened,” he said. “There’s a lot of miles between us, there are a lot of people to be interviewed, but this is our highest priority and we’re moving very quickly. I will have the findings and I will have what we did wrong and what we plan to do about it by the end of the month.”

Steen also indicated that he’s “very, very interested in and committed to” the idea of appointing a liaison between his agency and the LGBT community. He said TABC has a pool of numerous openly gay and lesbian employees that it could draw from for the position.

“I’m not going to sit out here and say, ‘Well I don’t have the money, so the answer is no,’” he said of appointing an LGBT liaison. “I may have to be creative, but we’ll figure it out.”

Steen said the agency already conducts diversity training for employees that includes sexual orientation, but he added that he’d be open to having the curriculum reviewed by experts in the LGBT community to ensure that it’s adequate.

Steen said he chose to contact Dallas Voice and schedule Wednesday’s interview so he update the LGBT community on his agency’s response to the raid.

“I just think the people of Fort Worth deserve to know that we’re very interested in this and very diligently working to get to the bottom of it,” he said.