Wait, what?Originally Posted by jetfire
That quick?
Wait, what?
That quick?
"If I ever needed to hunt in a tuxedo, then this would be the rifle I'd take." - okie john
"Not being able to govern events, I govern myself." - Michel De Montaigne
Video of the incident:
McMurtrie was charged with official oppression. The Texas statute for official oppression is:
In 1 and 2, it's going to require proving he knew it was illegal to beat him or use a fish-hook, which is what the prosecutor seemed to latch onto is particular...likely for it's visceral imagery, is my guess. As we can see from this thread, people who lack the relevant training, education, and experience are susceptible to this sort of "audience programming".(a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or
(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.
As far as I know, the specific act of fish-hooking an individual in Texas is not illegal provided you have a justification to use force...and given they were recovering a sharp metallic object, it can be easily justified to deliver blows and control holds until the subject is positively restrained given the propensity of subjects to fake surrender in order to draw officers in close before attacking, and also the propensity of people to fight once they feel the cuffs hit even if they were indeed intending to comply, originally.
Here, we have a large male individual armed with a sharp metallic object who displayed multiple instances of violence/intent of commit violence, and active non-compliance. Using the Graham Factors, it's easily justifiable to use an increased level of force against him compared to a subject who had no active resistance or history of violence, to include continued blows and control holds. Anything after positively restraining the subject could be viewed as a "gratuitous strike", but up until that restraint is confirmed, I think he was pretty well within his legal boundaries.
IMO, seeing the video, this appears to be a pretty clear case of administrations and a prosecutor trying to railroad an officer in order to score political points. IANAL, but I think it would've been pretty damn hard to prove the elements of the Texas statute here, to the point it borders as ridiculous to charge him. In other words, I think it's likely that they charged him knowing full well that he was justified and they were going to lose. He very well may have violated a policy by using certain language, an unapproved control hold, etc which justified his firing....but that doesn't necessarily mean his force was unlawful.
Hopefully this thread serves as a learning point to those that lack experience in restraining violent individuals, lack a summary background knowledge in the legalities of UOF and our constitutional standards, and where all that intersects on the sliding scale of public perception and political intervention.
Last edited by TGS; 12-21-2022 at 09:40 AM.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
Yep, verdict came in yesterday. I don't know LawDog personally but we have mutual friends so I heard about it pretty quick
Seems like the inmate had been hit with a taser and removed the barb, which he then wrapped with gauze....that seems very probable he did that so he could keep a grip on it while using it as a weapon, not keep it as a souvenir from the time he got tazed.
He was hit with a few pepper balls after refusing to give the makeshift weapons up and initially threw it on the ground, but then crawled toward it and got under the slot in the door from which the pepper balls were coming. Not so he could surrender this makeshift weapon, but rather so he couldn't be punished for refusing to surrender it.
It certainly isn't obvious to me from that angle that he was planning on letting his weapon go, and given his history of attempting to violently assault peace officers (which was known to the corrections staff) it seems dangerous to assume that all the signals he's given thus far would indicate that he isn't gonna try to fight you or stab you.
I cannot say I'd fault anyone for giving him a few strikes or fish hooking him until he dropped it for sure. The correctional officers are under no obligation to get stabbed by a violent felon with anything (and especially anything that's been in someone else's body) just so the same violent felon doesn't get hurt.
Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
https://www.timesrecordnews.com/story/news/local/2022/12/20/lawdog-found-not-guilty-in-excessive-force-case/69745448007/
The outcome of the nonjury trial ended over two years of waiting for Ian Hugh McMurtrie, 55. He was charged with official oppression, a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail.
The charges involved an incident on March 13, 2020, when an man scuffled with police and security personnel at United Regional Health Care, was shot with a Taser and taken to the Wichita County Jail, which at the time was located in the courthouse.
A Taser barb had been left in the inmate's shoulder. He pulled it out while waiting in a holding cell.
UPDATED: LawDog found not guilty
Lynn Walker
A judge found a retired Wichita County sheriff's lieutenant accused of using excessive force not guilty on Tuesday after a battle of expert testimony.
Retired Wichita County sheriff's Lt. Ian McMurtrie discusses the official oppression case against him in a live video streamed on the OLDNFO YouTube channel about four weeks ago.
The outcome of the nonjury trial ended over two years of waiting for Ian Hugh McMurtrie, 55. He was charged with official oppression, a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail.
The charges involved an incident on March 13, 2020, when an man scuffled with police and security personnel at United Regional Health Care, was shot with a Taser and taken to the Wichita County Jail, which at the time was located in the courthouse.
More:LawDog bites back: Former Wichita County officer claims oppression charge is raw deal
A Taser barb had been left in the inmate's shoulder. He pulled it out while waiting in a holding cell.
When it was discovered the man possessed the barb and a piece of gauze that could be used as weapons, detention officers fired pepper balls into his cell.
Pepper balls are similar to paintballs but filled with a substance similar to tear gas. After the man went to the floor, several jailers, including McMurtrie, entered the cell to secure the inmate.
Video played at the hearing showed McMurtrie delivering elbow blows to the inmate, and prosecutors claimed the deputy pushed the man's head against the concrete floor and "fish hooked" him — that is, pushed fingers into his nostrils and jerked his head back.
Blood was seen on the floor, and the man was taken to the hospital for treatment later that morning.
Andrew Speegle, a jail lieutenant, reviewed the incident and testified McMurtrie was heard telling the inmate, "I'll pull your spine out through your nose and beat you to death with it."
Speegle said he believed McMurtrie used excessive force. The prosecution also introduced a former head of the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement who agreed the treatment of the inmate was excessive.
Defense attorney Robert Estrada presented correctional specialists, a doctor and a paramedic who all testified they did not think McMurtrie's use of force was excessive.
Senior District Judge Bob Brotherton said given the limitations of what he could see in the video, he concluded McMurtrie was not guilty.
McMurtrie, an author and blogger of The Law Dog Files, raised over $43,000 for his defense with help of his literary community. The money went to fees for the experts to testify and for legal expenses.
Our own @Chuck Haggard served as an expert witness for Lt McMurtrie's Defense.
Given the breadth of UOF expertise here on P-F that concluded largely the same as the judge. And the willingness of experts among our ranks to willingly testify on behalf of his defense - I believe we can conclude with a Not Guilty Verdict that justice has been served and consider this matter closed.
Thumbs up for both McMurtrie and Haggard.
I don't know LawDog, though I've enjoyed his writing, but I do know Chuck Haggard. He wouldn't have spoken for anyone he didn't believe was in the right after reviewing all the discovery materials.
"I'll pull your spine out through your nose and beat you to death with it."
That got a good laugh out of me.
It is a great line. Not one I would like to be recorded saying, but still, a great line. As I get closer to retirement I consider saying something like that more and more...
Reply With Quote