tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post8257061673455694039..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Creating new discretion for police to use deescalation methodsGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-15283815631064248442017-03-30T08:45:38.219-05:002017-03-30T08:45:38.219-05:00@ Matt: The origin of this is that Austin PD brass...@ Matt: The origin of this is that Austin PD brass claimed this statute was the reason they and other departments could not implement a proportionate response/de-escalation policy that reform advocates wanted and the city council required in a budget rider. So a change in the law was sought. If it turns out that argument was just a lie thrown up to prevent reform and isn't really true, I've been in politics long enough not to be surprised. But in that case, nobody should mind updating anachronistic language that isn't really in effect, anyway, 7:52's dissertation on mays and shalls notwithstanding.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-6361534149933604232017-03-29T10:08:09.807-05:002017-03-29T10:08:09.807-05:00First, I agree with the intent of the revisions. ...First, I agree with the intent of the revisions. Second, this part of the code operates in conjunction with Chapters 14 and 15, Arrest Without Warrant and Arrest With Warrant, respectively. Taking Chapters 2 and 14 together, the only offense for which a peace officer SHALL arrest is Violation of a Protective Order. This is why peace officers are permitted, by statutes, to use discretion.<br /><br />Again, I agree with the revisions and appreciate the attempt to clarify the intent of peace officer authority. However, the substance of the law revision doesn't change what has already been permissible.<br /><br />This comment, and a couple of bucks, will get you a cup of coffee...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09347244435659795400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-29964560522466110832017-03-28T05:44:45.449-05:002017-03-28T05:44:45.449-05:00There are LOTS of situations in the modern world w...There are LOTS of situations in the modern world where Texas cops don't follow SHALL. For example, many departments have policies that cops shouldn't pursue in vehicles for low-level misdemeanors because it would endanger the public They don't arrest for every Class C misdemeanor, though this seem to say they "shall." They can give tickets instead of arresting for 7 different Class B misdemeanors. They're already exercising discretion. The law should track what they're doing and not require them to do things that they in fact cannot and will not.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-67767630860286948892017-03-27T19:52:41.771-05:002017-03-27T19:52:41.771-05:00I bet shop owner of the corner store where the kid...I bet shop owner of the corner store where the kid stole the candy bar would disagree. Or, knowing the police won't follow the law, maybe the shop owner should enforce his own law with a loaded gun behind the counter.<br /><br />The language used to write law is specific. If the police (or other state actors) aren't following the law (as John Q. Public must) then disciplinary actions must take place.<br /><br />TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE<br />Sec. 311.016. "MAY," "SHALL," "MUST," ETC. The following constructions apply unless the context in which the word or phrase appears necessarily requires a different construction or unless a different construction is expressly provided by statute:<br /><br />(1) "May" creates discretionary authority or grants permission or a power.<br />(2) "Shall" imposes a duty.<br />(3) "Must" creates or recognizes a condition precedent.<br />(4) "Is entitled to" creates or recognizes a right.<br />(5) "May not" imposes a prohibition and is synonymous with "shall not."<br />(6) "Is not entitled to" negates a right.<br />(7) "Is not required to" negates a duty or condition precedent.<br /><br />http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.311.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com