Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 69

Thread: LawDog Atty Fee Fundraiser

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by jlw View Post
    The use of force in question is by a peace officer, not a soldier.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
    Could you expand on this, within the specific scope of this topic, please? References to other posts would be particularly helpful for my understanding.
    Jules
    Runcible Works

  2. #32
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by c_rion View Post
    Im a retired Combat Arms NCO with 27 Months of combat experience in line platoons. I led soldiers in combat in OIF 1, Operation Iron Saber, and The Surge. I patrolled and fought in Sadr City on April 4 2004( Battle of Sadr City), Al Kut, An Najaf(OIS), and Route Irish/ Amiriyah in Baghdad(The Surge). All while being subject to ever changing use of force directives, ROEs, the Law of Land Warfare and the UCMJ. While also enforcing the same. My last firefight with and physical fight and capture of an adult non uniformed enemy combatant /EPW was April 2006 at Al-Madinah Al-Monawara Mosque in sector 834 in Baghdad. I was decorated for Valor in that fight. I have been a part of and subject to 15-6 investigations regarding the lethal use of force under combat conditions. I followed the ROE , use of force directives, etc and miraculously never ended up Relieved for Cause, GOMOR, or in jail. I have zero tolerance for anyone who is in a profession of arms, as the "good guy",knows the rules, what the ROE and use of force policies and SOPs are, and blatantly fails to follow them. The ends do NOT justify the means,period. He used unlawful force, tried to duck the consequences, and now will have to answer to those consequences. I do know Sheriff Duke in passing(met once and shook his hand), I do not know the LT. Yes, I participated in 2 threads. Im not a chatty Cathy. I really do not like to do the whole" this is my resume" e-penis thing, however, you asked so eloquently, so there is your answer. If you are looking for an echo chamber to reinforce your opinions and be a cheerleader for "your guy", whoever that may be and irrespective of the circumstances,regardless of what the Sheriff has to say, who is also very much "One of your guys", then please, by all means feel free to show me the door. I see I may be in the wrong place after all.
    Interesting, the UCMJ is something of its own thing and the way in which it is applied is sometimes contrary to the normal US legal system. It’s definitely a different process than US civilian law-enforcement, which is judged according to the standards found in three Supreme Court decisions. Tennessee vs. Garner, Graham vs Connor, and Scott vs Harris. Of the three Graham v. Connor is the most significant. It established the objective reasonableness standard, and how that standard should be applied. they were both similarities and significant differences between that and how do you CMJ is applied. For example, in the Graham case, the officer was factually wrong, but not legally responsible because in context, their actions were reasonable based on what was known to them at the time.

    So, for example, whether or not Lieutenant McMurray knew about the detainee’s prior assault and attempt to disarm an officer is a factor, despite it being a separate incident.

    @jlw’s distinction between policy violations and legal violations (and their potential consequences) in civilian law enforcement are on point.

    Background matters. all opinions are not equal. it doesn’t matter whether it’s this topic or something like COVID. When you do something for a living, you have a depth of knowledge and a base of experience in actual application This applies to someone who’s never heard a shot fired in anger arguing with you about military matters, or someone with zero medical experience in a Covid thread arguing with the cardiologist because of something they read on the internet.

    In this case, 25 years of law-enforcement, including 15 years as an instructor and participation in the use of force, investigations tells me that there is not enough info to make a definitive claim one way or the other here. Some posters may be erring on the side of giving Lieutenant McMurray the benefit of the doubt because of their prior interaction with him in a different context. Conversely, unless you have some personal bias in favor of the current sheriff, you seem to be giving an inordinate amount of weight to media reports.

    In my own experience, in a small jurisdiction like Wichita county, if there is an legitimate issue with an LEOs actions on duty it will be investigated by an outside entity, whether the TX Rangers or a neighboring jurisdiction to avoid even the appearance of bias. The fact that this was all handled “in-house“ is a red flag. Small town politics gone bad is a real thing.

    It’s certainly possible Lieutenant McMurray screwed up in the heat of the moment. However, given your background, and the similarities in both civil and military bureaucracies I’m sure you have also seen bad leaders use the system to settle scores. Or, as is often the case in the real world it could be a little bit of both.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by c_rion View Post
    1. "Use of force directive" is guidance by someone with Command Authority that locally modifies and further restricts your use of force and further limits what you can or cant do or weapons you cannot employ. These use of force directives are lawful orders and carry the force of law. IE; You are in a very built up area with lots of COBS. The battle space commander determines that 40mm HEDP will not be used to engage enemy forces because of the great risk for collateral damage. ROE remains the guideline, but ROE can be further defined or restricted by a use of force directive if the battlespace commander feels that it is necessary. Twice during my time in IZ, my actual SROE shifted from MOTW/COIN back to a WROE. Exciting.

    2. OIS referred to and in this context is an abbreviation of Operation Iron Saber. Not OIS as it refers to police and an Officer Involved Shooting.

    3. Thanks. I appreciate it. Honestly I should have just layed low and not have to type out a resume. I hate doing it just to measure "e- penis". It won't happen again.

    4.Folks apparently do not realize that Witchita is a soilid red, republican voting pro police county. The Judges are Republican, the Sheriff is a Republican, the DA is a Republican.It isn't Travis county, it is probably one of the most pro police counties in TX. In spite of all that, the Sheriff, DA, and a panel of Witchita county citizens on a grand jury, after watching the video, voted to indict. Thats a clue.

    5. Im done here. The LT is either going to plea or stand trial, and it is what it is. He brought this upon himself, and I wish him the best of luck.
    I dig, and I appreciate you taking the time to write all of that up: I think it goes a long way towards disambiguation for the readership, especially with how similar sounding terms can be used very differently in different venues. (Particularly for #2.)

    FWIW, I recall slightly different permutations of these terms from the same period, but my alma mater is different than yours. The different restrictions that floated in and out of relevance for Mk19s, mortars, arty, and rocket\assault weapons certainly made some aspects of life difficult.

    For me myself, I believe that I have a professional obligation to forbear on judgement, no matter how stark the written presentation of facts. I can wait until I see the referenced video in whole or in part, and for me it is easier to maintain a flexible mind against the potential for new evidence, if I don’t close onto an opinion before I’m obliged to. But, we all walk different roads in the now.
    Jules
    Runcible Works

  4. #34

    LawDog Atty Fee Fundraiser

    Quote Originally Posted by runcible View Post
    Could you expand on this, within the specific scope of this topic, please? References to other posts would be particularly helpful for my understanding.
    The UMCJ has absolutely no relevance to this discussion. Lawdog was a peace officer in the state of TX. His use of force will be evaluated based upon the laws of the state of Texas and the Constitution of the United States.
    Last edited by jlw; 11-11-2022 at 12:08 PM.
    I had an ER nurse in a class. I noticed she kept taking all head shots. Her response when asked why, "'I've seen too many people who have been shot in the chest putting up a fight in the ER." Point taken.

  5. #35
    I hit my 24th anniversary of being a cop in January. I had 12 years as chief deputy of a of sheriff’s office containing a jail. I reviewed all use of force incidents.

    I’m also a federal certified use of force instructor, have been recognized as an expert witness on the topic, and I was a PIO as well. I’m well versed with the media getting stories wrong.

    In my professional opinion, there is not enough evidence linked in this thread to form an opinion.

    It certainly does not “look good” that Lawdog suddenly retired and isn’t offering any real information, but then again, he’s the one that will be on trial, and public comments are probably not in his best interest.
    I had an ER nurse in a class. I noticed she kept taking all head shots. Her response when asked why, "'I've seen too many people who have been shot in the chest putting up a fight in the ER." Point taken.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by jlw View Post
    The UMCJ has absolutely no relevance to this discussion. Lawdog was a peace office in the state of TX. His use of force will be evaluated based upon the laws of the state of Texas and the Constitution of the United States.
    I think that there would have been less confusion if you had not quoted one of c_rion's posts that was not where he was expounding upon UOFDs in the specifically DOD\OCONUS context, and was instead discussing UOF as a general subject in the context of Dom\TX LE as he previously had been.

    If we quoted the total post content, it'd look like this:

    Quote Originally Posted by c_rion View Post
    1. "Use of force directive" is guidance by someone with Command Authority that locally modifies and further restricts your use of force and further limits what you can or cant do or weapons you cannot employ. These use of force directives are lawful orders and carry the force of law. IE; You are in a very built up area with lots of COBS. The battle space commander determines that 40mm HEDP will not be used to engage enemy forces because of the great risk for collateral damage. ROE remains the guideline, but ROE can be further defined or restricted by a use of force directive if the battlespace commander feels that it is necessary. Twice during my time in IZ, my actual SROE shifted from MOTW/COIN back to a WROE. Exciting.
    Quote Originally Posted by jlw View Post
    No. No, they do not. Agency policy is simply policy, not law. One may be fired or otherwise disciplined for violating policy but not prosecuted.
    Perhaps your experience in Dom LE has been different from mine, but did you use a lot of 40mm and ROE?

    (I write this having worked for an LE Agency that did in fact have ROE for a good long while, and I don't disagree with your remarks in general, but I do question their relevance to the post in which they were in reply to.)
    Jules
    Runcible Works

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by runcible View Post
    I think that there would have been less confusion if you had not quoted one of c_rion's posts that was not where he was expounding upon UOFDs in the specifically DOD\OCONUS context, and was instead discussing UOF as a general subject in the context of Dom\TX LE as he previously had been.

    If we quoted the total post content, it'd look like this:





    Perhaps your experience in Dom LE has been different from mine, but did you use a lot of 40mm and ROE?

    (I write this having worked for an LE Agency that did in fact have ROE for a good long while, and I don't disagree with your remarks in general, but I do question their relevance to the post in which they were in reply to.)
    The term “rules of engagement” has no place in civilian law enforcement. All use of force is a seizure and is evaluated under the objective reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment.

    Policy is not law.

    Yes, I have used a 40mm. I was the grenadier on a crowd control team (polite way of saying riot squad).

    Your agency may fire or discipline you for violating a policy, but violating a policy is not prosecutable.
    I had an ER nurse in a class. I noticed she kept taking all head shots. Her response when asked why, "'I've seen too many people who have been shot in the chest putting up a fight in the ER." Point taken.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by jlw View Post
    The term “rules of engagement” has no place in civilian law enforcement. All use of force is a seizure and is evaluated under the objective reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment.

    Policy is not law.

    Yes, I have used a 40mm. I was the grenadier on a crowd control team (polite way of saying riot squad).

    Your agency may fire or discipline you for violating a policy, but violating a policy is not prosecutable.
    JLW,

    This is verging into the argumentative, whereas I've been seeking to disambiguate and understand.

    If you used 40mm HEDP, as c_rion mentioned; on crowds of US citizens, as you mentioned; then I don't think that casts a kind light upon you.

    I don't disagree on ROE having no place in domestic law enforcement: I made no assertion that it did. I made a verifiable statement of fact.

    As you well know, the UCMJ, which was just being discussed, allows for criminal charges to be made and convictions received for violating policy as assuredly as they allow for charges to be sought for violating the terms of a doctor's note.

    Can we agree on what we agree on, parse finely where we need to parse finely (e.g. dom LE UOF vs DOD in-theater UOFD mods to ROE), and stop treating this as an oppositional conversation, please?
    Jules
    Runcible Works

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by runcible View Post
    JLW,

    This is verging into the argumentative, whereas I've been seeking to disambiguate and understand.

    If you used 40mm HEDP, as c_rion mentioned; on crowds of US citizens, as you mentioned; then I don't think that casts a kind light upon you.

    I don't disagree on ROE having no place in domestic law enforcement: I made no assertion that it did. I made a verifiable statement of fact.

    As you well know, the UCMJ, which was just being discussed, allows for criminal charges to be made and convictions received for violating policy as assuredly as they allow for charges to be sought for violating the terms of a doctor's note.

    Can we agree on what we agree on, parse finely where we need to parse finely (e.g. dom LE UOF vs DOD in-theater UOFD mods to ROE), and stop treating this as an oppositional conversation, please?
    You asked if I had used a 40mm. Now you are referencing what I believe to be high explosive rounds.

    Our team used a 40mm launcher for "less lethal" rounds such as CS gas (tear gads), liquid filled OC rounds (pepper spray), and impact munitions such as stinger balls and rubber finned batons. No, we didn't launch high explosives at crowds.

    There is no parsing. No part of the UMCJ applies to domestic law enforcement. The Supreme Court has clearly established the objective reasonable standard for use of force.
    I had an ER nurse in a class. I noticed she kept taking all head shots. Her response when asked why, "'I've seen too many people who have been shot in the chest putting up a fight in the ER." Point taken.

  10. #40
    ...and with that, I've written all I need to write on this.
    I had an ER nurse in a class. I noticed she kept taking all head shots. Her response when asked why, "'I've seen too many people who have been shot in the chest putting up a fight in the ER." Point taken.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •