Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
None of that happened, nor has that been reported. Here is what was reported:
-cop claims he saw suspect hit a curb and bounce back into oncoming traffic. No witnesses have come forward to confirm seeing this. No evidence has been presented showing damage to the student's car.
Won't the eyes of the court see the officer's report and testimony as evidence and accept him as a credible witness? If so then here is our witness and evidence regarding the bad driving.
The car has likely been impounded for evidence with the cosmetic damage that corroborates the officer's report.
In an unrelated note there were items taken from Redus' Ranger and home which are being sent to the lab. [link]
<hr>
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheTruth
What would be interesting to hear would be information from whoever was working at Whataburger about whether the cop took his burger before going after the student. If he waited for the burger, then obviously the driving couldn't have been that erratic,
Wait for the recording is still my advice. Will it have Redus puzzled and asking why he was pulled over? That would be one way to prove he was not driving erratically. Anyone driving straight like a bee and being pulled over would likely respond that way.
Maybe it will have Redus being cooperative until the moment the handcuffs came out?
Quote:
Carter ordered Redus to put his hands on his vehicle, and he obeyed, but when the officer pulled out his handcuffs, the student refused to cooperate, Pruitt said.
but it would explain why he didn't catch up to the student for 1.5 miles.
-cop has never claimed that he tried to pull the student over on the street. The student was already parked, had exited the car, and was walking to his apartment by the time the cop caught up to him.
Quote:
At that point, Carter turned on his emergency lights to make a traffic stop, Pruitt said. Both cars drove a mile and a half north on Broadway while Carter, via his radio, asked another university officer to call the Alamo Heights Police Department for backup, Pruitt said.
The flashers came on as soon as the violation was witnessed. Police officers do not silently follow suspects home only to turn on their emergency lights once the suspected drunk driver is safely parked. They begin the legal stop way sooner to save as many lives as possible...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheTruth
-no information has been given about any lawful orders given or ignored.
It has plainly been given but we could possibly be reading different articles among the plethora now published.
14 times to put his hands behind his back, 56 times to stop resisting arrest, and 4 times to stop or he would be shot...all ignored.
Quote:
“He warned Robert Redus four times, 'Stop or I'll shoot,’’’ Alamo Heights Chief Richard Pruitt told TODAY.
No proof that the student became physically aggressive, first or at all. The only aggressive actions we have are the cop pulling out his baton and gun. Pulling out the gun makes it legal for the student to defend himself against lethal force.
It seems more likely that the deceased had been out drinking at more than one location then decided to get behind the wheel and drive. All so close to his graduation and the start of his life when the tragic consequences of his decision caught up to him.
Then when the moment of his arrest arrived, which would have crashed and dashed all those dreams, he panicked and decide to resist defensively before becoming aggressive offensively.
But maybe that is all wrong and your scenario is closer to the truth?
Quote:
One witness told police she and Redus had gone drinking and bar-hopping that night, Pruitt told the media.
Wait for the recording is still my advice. Will it have Redus puzzled and asking why he was pulled over? That would be one way to prove he was not driving erratically. Anyone driving straight like a bee and being pulled over would likely respond that way.
Someone not knowing why they were pulled over doesn't prove much about the infraction. I have pulled people out of wrecks (they were drunk and hit something) and wanted to know "why I was pulling them over..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merovee
The flashers came on as soon as the violation was witnessed. Police officers do not silently follow suspects home only to turn on their emergency lights once the suspected drunk driver is safely parked. They begin the legal stop way sooner to save as many lives as possible...
Not at all. Sometimes we follow people for a good ways after we witness a violation. This is often for safety reasons. Some places are not good places to make a traffic stop. There are many other reasons as well. Keep in mind, the Officer doesn't have a clue where the person is headed. If you happen to pull him over "right by his house" (which happens sometimes) it may appear "you followed him home." but that is impossible, again because you don't often know where he is going.
Won't the eyes of the court see the officer's report and testimony as evidence and accept him as a credible witness? If so then here is our witness and evidence regarding the bad driving.
I sure hope not. That's one of the great flaws with our judicial system, that an upstanding citizen gets less credibility than a cop with a questionable past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merovee
The car has likely been impounded for evidence with the cosmetic damage that corroborates the officer's report.
In an unrelated note there were items taken from Redus' Ranger and home which are being sent to the lab. [link]
The victim's car being impounded is just more police propaganda. They're obviously trying to imply that they found drugs or alcohol in the car. Again, no proof. It is not likely that there is cosmetic damage to his car. You know why? No proof of anything like that. Why have we heard from strangers bad-mouthing the cop in the news, yet nobody bad-mouthing the student, other than other cops?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merovee
It seems more likely that the deceased had been out drinking at more than one location then decided to get behind the wheel and drive. All so close to his graduation and the start of his life when the tragic consequences of his decision caught up to him.
I realize that I'm talking to San Antonians, who obviously can't have a drink or two over the course of a few hours, or who can't go out without having a drink at all. Going to a few bars doesn't mean anything. Any eye-witnesses like bartenders who served him that night? Not that I've heard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merovee
Maybe it will have Redus being cooperative until the moment the handcuffs came out?
Great, more speculation. Here, how about this scenario that is just as plausible. The cop gets his rocks off by beating up innocent students in the middle of the night, since you know, the job attracts those types. He came at the student, baton swinging. The student, who the cop assumed was drunk but actually wasn't, fought back to the surprise of the cop. Being ridiculously overweight and now losing a fight that would likely end his career, he pulls out his gun and shoots the student, killing him. Dead men tell no tales after all.
Someone not knowing why they were pulled over doesn't prove much about the infraction. I have pulled people out of wrecks (they were drunk and hit something) and wanted to know "why I was pulling them over..."
Not at all. Sometimes we follow people for a good ways after we witness a violation. This is often for safety reasons. Some places are not good places to make a traffic stop. There are many other reasons as well. Keep in mind, the Officer doesn't have a clue where the person is headed. If you happen to pull him over "right by his house" (which happens sometimes) it may appear "you followed him home." but that is impossible, again because you don't often know where he is going.
Just some technical FYIs.
That all makes sense. Would the same hold true in this specific instance where a 2 am Friday night driver hit a curb and cruised onto an opposing lane? Or would the flashers come on sooner rather than later as ITT has proposed?
This article is clear that in this case the emergency lights were activated right after observing the erratic driving and before driving the mile and a half to where the stop occurred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheTruth
I sure hope not. That's one of the great flaws with our judicial system, that an upstanding citizen gets less credibility than a cop with a questionable past.
The system has its flaws which can be exploited in actual cases of police brutality but in general the design of the judiciary is functional.
This is the first instance in the quoted post that attempts to measure the involved parties as polar opposites. Dualism is an illusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheTruth
The victim's car being impounded is just more police propaganda. They're obviously trying to imply that they found drugs or alcohol in the car. Again, no proof. It is not likely that there is cosmetic damage to his car. You know why? No proof of anything like that. Why have we heard from strangers bad-mouthing the cop in the news, yet nobody bad-mouthing the student, other than other cops?
It is no surprise that the media is able to find more criticism for a longtime local officer than for an out-of-town college student. If they also dug deeper they could possibly find good reports of Officer Carter helping others.
This is also the second presentation of a dualist perspective where we have, "strangers bad-mouthing a cop," and, "nobody bad-mouthing the student."
Humans generally are capable of both good and evil. Officers are in a unique position to possibly brutalize someone or witness another officer doing so while keeping quiet about it while then turning around and helping save lives all in the very same shift.
So from this perspective the narration of bad cop vs upstanding citizen student has no bearing once we isolate the incident to an officer doing his job and a suspected drunk driver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheTruth
I realize that I'm talking to San Antonians, who obviously can't have a drink or two over the course of a few hours, or who can't go out without having a drink at all. Going to a few bars doesn't mean anything. Any eye-witnesses like bartenders who served him that night? Not that I've heard.
The same article referenced above offers that, "one witness told police that she and Redus had gone drinking and bar-hopping the night of the shooting."
One will not find sympathy for drunk drivers here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheTruth
Great, more speculation. Here, how about this scenario that is just as plausible. The cop gets his rocks off by beating up innocent students in the middle of the night, since you know, the job attracts those types. He came at the student, baton swinging. The student, who the cop assumed was drunk but actually wasn't, fought back to the surprise of the cop. Being ridiculously overweight and now losing a fight that would likely end his career, he pulls out his gun and shoots the student, killing him. Dead men tell no tales after all.
When an officer is doing his job and pulling over a suspected drunk driver around 2 am on a Friday night then the types others think the profession attracts and the officer's weight are not relevant. Just because Redus thought he could ignore the flashers, resist arrest, and, "fought back to the surprise of the cop," does not change their lack of relevancy.
I think that Incarnate Word themselves share some of the blame if what I read before is correct, i.e. that they do not actually teach their students either via orientation or student handbooks as to the actual powers of the university police force like other schools in the area do.
I mean the general assumption as a college freshman is that a campus cop has no real powers other than on campus. It would be nice (and decrease possible liability) if you stressed that the police force can enforce laws and perform police duties off campus as well.
Remember when you begin you are generally an 18 yr old kid. The general logic is that campus cops have no powers off campus (I always assumed that back in college). It would be nice for the schools to actually stress that point though if only to CYA.
What would be nicer is that EVERYONE presume flashing lights means you need to pull over and obey the man wearing the badge. The place to "fight" a cop is the courtroom - not the side of the road. You can pretty much bet you're going to lose that fight one way or another.
I'm sick and tired of folks that want to second-guess an officer with no personal knowledge of ALL the facts related to the case. If it's a bad stop, it'll come out in court. If it's a good one, then the fine will be paid. Either way, all parties go home alive. Makes sense to me......
What would be nicer is that EVERYONE presume flashing lights means you need to pull over and obey the man wearing the badge. The place to "fight" a cop is the courtroom - not the side of the road. You can pretty much bet you're going to lose that fight one way or another.
I'm sick and tired of folks that want to second-guess an officer with no personal knowledge of ALL the facts related to the case. If it's a bad stop, it'll come out in court. If it's a good one, then the fine will be paid. Either way, all parties go home alive. Makes sense to me......
What if we stopped putting cops on a pedestal? What if police unions actually let bad officers be fired? What if we stopped assuming that cops lie less than others? Steal less than others? Commit crimes less than others?
The problem with this case is that there will be no court case for the student, because a cop shot him, unarmed.
I think that Incarnate Word themselves share some of the blame if what I read before is correct, i.e. that they do not actually teach their students either via orientation or student handbooks as to the actual powers of the university police force like other schools in the area do.
I mean the general assumption as a college freshman is that a campus cop has no real powers other than on campus. It would be nice (and decrease possible liability) if you stressed that the police force can enforce laws and perform police duties off campus as well.
Remember when you begin you are generally an 18 yr old kid. The general logic is that campus cops have no powers off campus (I always assumed that back in college). It would be nice for the schools to actually stress that point though if only to CYA.
Or what if colleges didn't have campus cops? Or didn't give them weapons? What happens at UIW that couldn't be handled by SAPD?
Or what if colleges didn't have campus cops? Or didn't give them weapons? What happens at UIW that couldn't be handled by SAPD?
Absolutely.
Let IWC have their parking Gestapo. if they desire and let SAPD respond if a real police response is required. Leave the IWC people cloistered in their domaine and when they drive on the steer, they are nothing but civilians.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
