Adrian Peterson arrested in Houston

[CloakNNNdagger]

Evidently covers police officers AND non police bouncers.

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

TITLE 1. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 14. ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT

Art. 14.01. OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW. (a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.

(b) A peace officer may arrest an offender without a warrant for any offense committed in his presence or within his view.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722. Amended by Acts 1967, 60th Leg., p. 1735, ch. 659, Sec. 8, eff. Aug. 28, 1967.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u.../htm/CR.14.htm

[disaacks3]

Originally Posted by CloakNNNdagger

Evidently covers police officers AND non police bouncers.



http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u.../htm/CR.14.htm

That's the "Citizens Arrest" standard. It covers anybody. It'll hold up a lot better in court with a TCLEOSE certification-holder doing the "arresting".

[Double Barrel]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

If I was a club owner I would prefer an officer as well.

I just have concerns over the authority and repercussions. A bouncer has the right to walk you to the door. If you pull your arm away you don't get charged with resisting arrest. A bouncer may chest bump you and you bump him back - it's just a batter and the ump arguing over the plate. Same thing happens with an officer and you may end up with an assaulting an officer charge. I think knowing they have the same power of enforcement encourages a minority of them to act more aggressively. I think them wearing their uniforms alone lends a weight to their instructions.

Very interesting. I never really gave it much thought. Then again, I don't go to bars and don't get rowdy at public events to have a security guard, bouncer, or off-duty cop have to man-handle me.

Good points, though. Their uniform definitely adds weight to their instructions. I've seen it many times at games and concerts (those are off-duty cops at those events, right?)

[infantrycak]

CnD - way late on the citizen's arrest standard. j/k

Originally Posted by Double Barrel

Very interesting. I never really gave it much thought. Then again, I don't go to bars and don't get rowdy at public events to have a security guard, bouncer, or off-duty cop have to man-handle me.

Good points, though. Their uniform definitely adds weight to their instructions. I've seen it many times at games and concerts (those are off-duty cops at those events, right?)

Yes they are off-duty. That's why you see uniforms which are way outside their jurisdiction.

As I said to me it is about the dramatically different ramifications for behaving in exactly the same way to two guys who may be in exactly the same place providing security, and then how that potentially affects their behavior.

[GP]

Originally Posted by Double Barrel

I'm not sure of the origin of GP's rant. I was just using it to piggy back after reading powda's informative post. I think GP's last line was more from a perspective in general about some of the less-than-positive stories and anti-cop sentiment in the NSZ, but he would have to confirm that to be the case. Like you have said before, though, good cop stories are not really newsworthy so we do not talk about them.

nu·ance (näns, ny-, n-äns, ny-)
n.
1. A subtle or slight degree of difference, as in meaning, feeling, or tone; a gradation.
2. Expression or appreciation of subtle shades of meaning, feeling, or tone: a rich artistic performance, full of nuance.

In other words, when things are black and white...people try and find nuances, subtle degrees of difference, as in meaning, feeling, or tone. In short: Such a person acts as if he/she has the inside track on something and other people merely need to be informed of their ignorance on the topic being discussed.

The problem with nuanced views, IMO, is that it's subjective and open to constant interpretation. Suddenly, the conversation becomes fractured and the main point is lost. Instead, the energy of the discussion is spent chasing all the various veins and rabbit trails of minutia.

mi·nu·ti·a (m-nsh-, -sh, -ny-)
n. pl. mi·nu·ti·ae (-sh-)
A small or trivial detail: "the minutiae of experimental and mathematical procedure" (Frederick Turner).

All the way around, there is no progress toward a sound conclusion that attempts to find truth. Instead, we attempt to create the truth via persuasive debate/speaking.

The lawyer representing Adrian Peterson, for example, is attempting to create a truth rather than finding what truth is really there. And if he can persuade a court of law that HIS truth is real (and it happens ALL the time in America) then what more can I say?

AN EXAMPLE:
One of the worst violators is American Christianity. There is no shortage of nuanced Christian mores in America. Turn on the TV, flip through the God channels, and see how many different views of grace, truth, revelation, etc. are out there for consumption by an all too eager Christian market. All one has to do is merely shop for their choice of church or denomination based on what church/denomination most closely resembles their current needs. And if you can't find it out there...just create one or persuade a few church members to split from the church and create a new brand of church that feels "more right."

I am not blanket labeling Christians on here, either. So I don't want people thinking I'm slamming them per se. I am merely saying that, unlike the Christianity you see in 3rd World nations, or nations were being a Christian is punishable by death or imprisonment, the brand of Christianity that I see in America is soft and mushy and can be formed and shaped to fit the person practicing it. That's a whole 'nuther topic though.

Nuanced thinking does not discriminate. It's found in all corners of the world and through the whole spectrum of human history. I just happen to think it's in concentrated form in America right now (and has been since the 1960s).

Even with what I typed, a nuanced person is going to pick it apart and apply their nuanced thinking towards my statements in order to make THEIR point. Sit and watch, it'll happen in short form.

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by GP

Nuanced thinking does not discriminate.

I hope this was some sort of joke otherwise it is the oxymoronic statement of the year - at least so far.

[steelbtexan]

I will bet the anti AD people have never had a problem with cops being out of line.

The pro AD people have had these problems.

I find that if you do what the cops ask of you, you wont have these problems. Although I can see cops having problems with a young rich black guy not doing what they are telling him to do. Even if it is asking for a glass of water. Cops are generally big introverts with huge egos.

This is usually a case of who is the biggest swinging d**k in the club and it never turns out well for the young rich black athlete.

[CloakNNNdagger]

Why does it sound that Hardin is not threatening the city...........but is?

Peterson’s lawyer says no civil suit planned “at this time”

When Vikings running back Adrian Peterson hired high-profile attorney Rusty Hardin to fight his resisting arrest charge, it signaled that Peterson was looking for a fight, rather than a resolution that would make the whole thing go away quietly. But while Hardin claims that an off-duty Houston police officer gave Peterson a black eye, he also says that at the moment, he’s not looking to file a civil suit.

Asked in an interview with Andrew Siciliano on NFL Network whether they are contemplating a civil lawsuit, Hardin answered, “No, not at this time. I think those kind of things are way premature.”

Hardin didn’t expressly rule out Peterson suing the Houston Police Department, but he said that right now he’s looking to convince prosecutors to drop the resisting arrest charge.

“We’ll just concentrate on getting this taken care of first,” Hardin said. “The key thing for everybody to understand is Adrian never pushed, shoved or hit a police officer, and any suggestions that he did are just flat false. The initial reports were clearly wrong as to what happened. He wasn’t refusing to leave. He was leaving when he was placed under arrest; he did have some words with a police officer, but not anything that justifies an arrest and he certainly never did anything physically toward him. So I think when this is all over, the prosecutors are going to have to conclude these charges should never have been filed.”

Based on what we’ve heard so far, it sounds like the police at the very least overreacted. The wise move may be for the authorities in Houston to drop the charge against Peterson, and hope that Peterson’s ready to drop it as well.

link

[CloakNNNdagger]

Rusty inciting the audience.

The attorney for Vikings running back Adrian Peterson says the Houston Police Department had no valid reason to arrest Peterson on Saturday, when they arrested him and charged him with resisting arrest, but not with any other offense.

Attorney Rusty Hardin told Mike Florio (who’s filling in on the Dan Patrick Show today) that it’s baffling that Peterson would be charged with resisting arrest when the police still haven’t said what Peterson did to deserve an arrest in the first place.

“That’s because there wasn’t anything to arrest him for, and that goes right to the heart of everything,” Hardin said. “There was no basis for it. . . . He wasn’t doing anything to merit an arrest.”

Peterson particularly takes issue with the allegation from the police that Peterson pushed an off-duty police officer. Hardin said Peterson’s defense team has interviewed six witnesses, all of whom side with Peterson.

“Adrian never pushed or hit a police officer or shoved him or did anything,” Hardin said.

Hardin said Peterson is hoping his fans will give him the benefit of the doubt, given his reputation as a good guy off the field.

“This kind of conduct they’re suggesting is so totally inconsistent with Adrian’s history,” Hardin said. “He has been very careful over the years to conduct himself in a way that no one would think he would do something like this.”

Ultimately, Hardin said, Peterson isn’t interested in just paying a quick fine and getting the whole thing over with. Peterson wants to be completely exonerated.

“He wants everybody to make sure they understand he didn’t do this,” Hardin said.

Demonstrating that he didn’t do it will probably be more time consuming and more expensive than just making it go away quietly, but Peterson is determined to make sure everyone hears his side of the story. And his side is that he did nothing wrong.

link

[GP]

AP, you fugged up. Just move on.

[GP]

Originally Posted by steelbtexan

I will bet the anti AD people have never had a problem with cops being out of line.

The pro AD people have had these problems.

I find that if you do what the cops ask of you, you wont have these problems. Although I can see cops having problems with a young rich black guy not doing what they are telling him to do. Even if it is asking for a glass of water. Cops are generally big introverts with huge egos.

This is usually a case of who is the biggest swinging d**k in the club and it never turns out well for the young rich black athlete.

A lot of contradictions in your post.

You start off by saying that some have had cop problems and some have not...therefore the opinions being stated here are lining up with those experiences.

Then you say "I find that if you do what the cops ask of you, you wont have these problems"

Then you swerve immediately into an attack and blanket statement about cops. With racial comments sprinkled in, as well.

At the end of the day, most cops are just wanting to get off their shift and go home and celebrate making it through the day alive and unharmed.

EDIT: I just remembered a story that fits this issue. I have a friend who is a cop, long-time veteran, and he had to remove a disorderly person from Wal-Mart. Multiple times within a 30 minute span; the disorderly guy kept going back into Wal-Mart. Finally, the cop takes him out for like the 3rd time and the guy spits into the cop's face. My friend says "I will take a cussing all day long. You spit in my face, you go to jail. You just CHOSE to go to jail, so I will take you there." See what I mean? Cops actually put up with quite a bit, but anytime hands are laid on them, or body fluids are hurled upon them, they're going to take the person to jail. At some point, the game is over.

Adrian Peterson laid hands on an officer who was asking him and his group to leave. The officer did not respond to the trash talk. The officer responded to AP laying his hands on him. Totally justified.

Adrian wasn't busted up. Adrian MESSED up. And he's trying to recover some public opinion by saying the cops were over the line.

There would be a huge outcry if he genuinely suffered at the hands of cops. There would be no shortage of people running to the podium. As it stands, there's an opportunistic lawyer and a sad sack NFL superstar at the podium.

[badboy]

Originally Posted by 2012Champs

How would the subject of her issue with the bartender excuse Cak from getting pushed by the off duty officer?

Didn't say it did. I was interested in why she was in an arguement with bartender. I think process is you tell 'em what you want and pay for it. His explanation clarified & made sense.

[Double Barrel]

Originally Posted by steelbtexan

I will bet the anti AD people have never had a problem with cops being out of line.

The pro AD people have had these problems.

C'mon, man, that's just not true. I do not see everything in black and white perspectives. I constantly see shades of gray. There are many stories in the NSZ that I have not taken the side of cops when they do wrong.

I try to come to logical conclusions as a judge in the court of public opinion (where were are ALL judges, btw).

It makes no sense (to me) that AP is showing up at a bar at 1:20 a.m., is cold sober, and randomly gets pushed around by a cop.

When the GM of the bar is saying that he was acting like a drunk prima donna, I can easily believe that some superstar athlete thinks the rules don't apply to him and wants special treatment. It happens all the time with rich celebrities. They believe their own hype machines.

Occam's razor to me. Anything else requires aluminum foil around my head and a belief that multiple people are going to create an elaborate conspiracy in the spur of the moment.

One version makes sense because it's simple, and the other requires a complete suspension of reason and logic to swallow.

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by Double Barrel

One version makes sense because it's simple, and the other requires a complete suspension of reason and logic to swallow.

While I appreciate your simplicity argument consider this - why would a club or police officer refuse giving water to someone they claim was obviously inebriated? When closing time hits they usually start serving up water and Red Bull as quickly as they can to perk up the drunks.

Also, how credible is a club GM who is essentially stating now "we kept serving drinks over several hours to an obviously belligerently drunk person?" Does it make any sense as the GM relates it that AP had to act so poorly he got stuck in the VIP area? - what club around would not automatically put AP in the VIP area?

In the end it is useless at this point to accept anything said IF there really is surveillance video.

[Stemp]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

While I appreciate your simplicity argument consider this - why would a club or police officer refuse giving water to someone they claim was obviously inebriated? When closing time hits they usually start serving up water and Red Bull as quickly as they can to perk up the drunks.

Would you give anything extra to a person who has been causing trouble or being a pain the ass at your establishment? Especially if that person is hanging around and unwilling to leave at closing time?

Also, how credible is a club GM who is essentially stating now "we kept serving drinks over several hours to an obviously belligerently drunk person?" Does it make any sense as the GM relates it that AP had to act so poorly he got stuck in the VIP area? - what club around would not automatically put AP in the VIP area?

In the end it is useless at this point to accept anything said IF there really is surveillance video.

I didn't see anywhere where Peterson was being a belligerent drunk. It said he was being a prima donna and basically an ass. And nowhere does it say that they kept serving him drinks after it was apparent he was drunk. If they did so, their liquor license or the bartenders job would be in jeopardy.

I've served people who I thought were OK and they 5 minutes later it really clear they are smashed. At that point, you cut them off but you aren't their nanny. And if that person was being an ass to me, I would basically ignore any request and I would make sure security got their ass out at closing time.

[badboy]

Originally Posted by Stemp

Would you give anything extra to a person who has been causing trouble or being a pain the ass at your establishment? Especially if that person is hanging around and unwilling to leave at closing time?


I didn't see anywhere where Peterson was being a belligerent drunk. It said he was being a prima donna and basically an ass. And nowhere does it say that they kept serving him drinks after it was apparent he was drunk. If they did so, their liquor license or the bartenders job would be in jeopardy.

I've served people who I thought were OK and they 5 minutes later it really clear they are smashed. At that point, you cut them off but you aren't their nanny. And if that person was being an ass to me, I would basically ignore any request and I would make sure security got their ass out at closing time.

Just curious,if a customer is being an ass why wait until closing to get them out? Is it a money thing?

[Stemp]

Originally Posted by badboy

Just curious,if a customer is being an ass why wait until closing to get them out? Is it a money thing?

Obviously, I don't know, but if I were to guess, it's because they didn't want to cause a scene by kicking out a celebrity and they were just willing to wait it out till closing time. But he didn't leave, even when the police officer told him and his group they needed to go, twice.

[Double Barrel]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

While I appreciate your simplicity argument consider this - why would a club or police officer refuse giving water to someone they claim was obviously inebriated? When closing time hits they usually start serving up water and Red Bull as quickly as they can to perk up the drunks.

Well I guess it depends on which story you buy into. One says he was polite and asked for water (unnamed source). The next story says he was drunk and demanding a drink after closing time (club GM).

His mug shot looks like he was drinking to me.

Originally Posted by infantrycak

Also, how credible is a club GM who is essentially stating now "we kept serving drinks over several hours to an obviously belligerently drunk person?" Does it make any sense as the GM relates it that AP had to act so poorly he got stuck in the VIP area? - what club around would not automatically put AP in the VIP area?

I have not seen the story where the GM admitted that they kept serving him drinks after he was inebriated. Like Stemp, my impression was that AP was being an egomaniac and they decided to put him in VIP.

I did use the term "belligerence" in one of my previous posts, but that was describing AP during the incident and from the perspective that he was drunk when confronting the cops. That's the first word that comes to my mind anytime some intoxicated fool starts picking fights with a cop. But the club GM never used that word, iirc.

As far as putting him him VIP upon arrival, perhaps since the club was only open for another 35-40 minutes (according to AP), they might not have felt it warranted?

Originally Posted by infantrycak

In the end it is useless at this point to accept anything said IF there really is surveillance video.

Yep, true. It will be interesting to see if anything comes from the vid.

I've got a hunch that HPD will drop the charge because it's a little weak, and AP will want to get this behind him before the football season starts.

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by Stemp

Would you give anything extra to a person who has been causing trouble or being a pain the ass at your establishment? Especially if that person is hanging around and unwilling to leave at closing time?

I meant give as in serve not free but many bars will give free water. And yes because it is sound business policy to give/serve people who have been drinking water.

I didn't see anywhere where Peterson was being a belligerent (as in aggressive, not necessarily to the point of starting fights) drunk. It said he was being a prima donna and basically an ass. And nowhere does it say that they kept serving him drinks after it was apparent he was drunk. If they did so, their liquor license or the bartenders job would be in jeopardy.

Pick your term. Obnoxious, ass, belligerent. Here is a guy who has supposedly been to the club before so you know who he is but don't put AP in the VIP area and then when he behaves uncharacteristically drunk there is absolutely no indication he got cut off. They moved him after his uncharacteristic behavior. You think he sat politely in the VIP area after being told he was cut-off and then waited until closing time to get aggressive? Could be. Given the GM's comments I'll bet they didn't cut him off. In fact, according to the GM AP was trying to order "one more" drink

I am not taking any position yet. I am asking questions because it doesn't seem so simple as the GM's story to me. Why hasn't he been charged with assaulting a police officer? How about disorderly conduct, drunk in public, etc.?

Originally Posted by Double Barrel

Well I guess it depends on which story you buy into. One says he was polite and asked for water (unnamed source). The next story says he was drunk and demanding a drink after closing time (club GM).

His mug shot looks like he was drinking to me.

I have no doubt he was drinking that night. What he was ordering after closing time is up in the air.

I have not seen the story where the GM admitted that they kept serving him drinks after he was inebriated. Like Stemp, my impression was that AP was being an egomaniac and they decided to put him in VIP.

Again why wasn't he already in the VIP? Given the nature of his other comments I think the GM would have said if they cut him off. Tacit admission by not saying so. That's a critical fact to leave out of his comments.

I did use the term "belligerence" in one of my previous posts...

I wasn't even referring to your use of the word. Belligerent drunk is a term I use for obnoxiously drunk people.

As far as putting him him VIP upon arrival, perhaps since the club was only open for another 35-40 minutes (according to AP), they might not have felt it warranted?

Aren't you picking pieces of stories now? Believe the GM's story was he was there for 2-3 hours.

[Yankee_In_TX]

The GM is being a dumbass and is going to get himself and the club in trouble with TABC. They're a national chain and probably won't stand for his nominating himself as a spokes person for the club.

As for the truth, I still think it is some where in the middle. I believe AP was drunk and I believe the cops were jerks to him. What actually happened, we'll probably never know.