Ryan Moats Meets an Insensitive Officer in Dallas

NFL running back Ryan Moats just wanted to get his wife to the hospital before her mother died. You can't blame him for rolling through a red light. You can blame the officer who pulled him over outside the ER, ignored his pleas (and those of hospital staff), threatened to screw him over, and took his time writing a ticket.

His mother in law passed away while the offer forced Moats to remain in his car as he checked for outstanding warrants.

Dallas police officials apologized after confirming that the scene was captured on the squad car's video camera. Too little, too late for Moats and his wife.

< Cuomo Investigating AIG CDSs And Counterparty Payments | Slaves To Congress >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Read about this on ESPN or SI (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 06:58:12 AM EST
    yesterday and was appalled.

    No municipality needs police officers who are so stubborn and entrenched in their own power that they could ignore the requests of (1) the family, (2) hospital personnel who came out to verify for the police that Moats' mother-in-law indeed only had minutes to live and (3) hospital security, which offered to, in essence, mediate with an eye toward getting Moats upstairs to be with his wife and her family.

    What if Moats had rolled through that red light trying to get his wife to the hospital to have a baby?  Would the officer have ignored Mrs. Moats' situation and busied himself asserting his power while she gave birth on her own?

    What an a$$.

    Few things get my blood hot... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 08:04:37 AM EST
    like the abuse of authority...caught this story first thing in the AM, too early to get my blood hot.

    As long as there is authority, crap like this will happen...all we could do is limit the number of people we place in positions of authority, and limit the scope of that authority.  This arse-clown certainly needs a pink slip.

    Imagine if Moats had ignored these tyrannical orders as righteousness demands?  He'd be tased or dead.


    So sad. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by indy in sc on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 08:45:35 AM EST
    I'm not sure why, but I find it hard to believe that the officer persisted in being such a jerk after the nurse came out and told him that the woman was in fact dying and could he let Moats go and after the other officer makes the same plea.  I saw it with my own eyes on the video, but I just can't believe a human being could be so unfeeling.

    I wonder whether we would even have known that this happened if Moats had not been an NFL player.

    Probably not. Officers pulling people over WDB (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 08:50:32 AM EST
    is so prevalent in some parts - and the people being pulled over know not to complain about it or else they'll be marked and their lives made a living hell.  Happens all the time.  I used to live just outside a smaller community that was 99.9% white, a wealthy little enclave, and everyone knew that if someone of color - black or brown - drove through town the cops would find a reason to pull them over.  It was blatent harassment. And it still happens there.  And no, I am not kidding.

    I've seen this abuse of authority (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:02:04 AM EST
    by the policy many, many times and it involved all colors and genders. It's called a power trip, and it is extremely prevalent. I've been subjected to it myself several times.

    Yep, DWF -- Driving While Female (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:17:31 AM EST
    also is an issue.  

    Or was, until I aged and no longer looked like a young woman who would be fun to harass. (A cop friend told me that the cops considered it "flirting," something to pass the time.  The advice was to flirt back, to not get a ticket.  But it's difficult to join in the fun when it's going to make you late for your job, late for picking up your kids from child care that will close doors, etc.)


    We had a Fl state highway patrolman (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Amiss on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:34:47 AM EST
    that went on these power trips, but only on young white females. He would stop them and of course take their licenses, then would not return it. He finally got fired recently when one of the females turned him in for "rape" he told her he was taking her to his "special place".

    My sister in law was raped by a cop in a (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:41:34 AM EST
    scenario similar to this.  It happens a lot and they usually get away with it.  

    They get away with it because after a sexual (none / 0) (#86)
    by Amiss on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 12:28:06 AM EST
    assault by a police officer with a gun, especially, a female is at least for a time terrified of all police officers, especially in a small town like where I live.

    In the case I was referring to, the girl worked for my husband who is in retail. The patrolman, a "well-respected" man in the community even came into the store the next day. My husband was furious that he had the "balls" to do this, I then explained that was one of the ways he intimidated his victims. At first the girl had been terrified of turning him in and had slit her wrists fearful that no one would take her word. As it turned out there was much more evidence than her word against him, he had left his dna all over her car.


    Driving while female.... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by vml68 on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 02:05:25 PM EST
    I always thought that worked to my advantage. I never flirted but always apologized for speeding, expired license/registration, etc during my very careless younger days and always got away with a warning and no ticket.
    The only time I got a little worried was when I was pulled over at around 2 a.m, there was no other traffic and the cop asked me to get into his car. Thankfully he was very professional during that time and only started flirting when everything checked out and I was back in my own car.

    I was pulled over in daylight in this little (none / 0) (#7)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:07:42 AM EST
    enclave once.  I think it was because I was driving a 12-year old Oldsmobile and not a Mercedes or Lexus!  Seriously.  The cop had no reason to stop me - and I told him so.  He said I was swerving in my lane!  Ha. What a joke.  He was just harassing me.

    I've gotten the old.... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:09:53 AM EST
    "driving while white" in a "known drug area" unjustified stop, but to be fair nobody gets the business like brown-skinned people get the business...we haven't gotten to equality in regards to being subject to the abuse of authority just yet...but we're getting there, pretty soon the breaks you get being white will disappear, and we'll all be n*ggers in the eyes of the police state.

    Funny (none / 0) (#110)
    by Patrick on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 02:27:57 PM EST
    but we're getting there, pretty soon the breaks you get being white will disappear, and we'll all be n*ggers in the eyes of the police state.

    I see it moving in the opposite direction, but I admit, I'm only in a small part of the world.  


    ya (none / 0) (#11)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:28:37 AM EST
    Yeah, Ive had several odd encounters with the police and I'm white. I was pulled over in texas once, driving cross country when I was kid.  The cop seemed sure I was some kind of drug courier and spent an hour searching my car while I removed everything. He had a serious attitude.

    I remember how excited he got when he took the spare lug nuts, in a baggy, out of my glove box and showed them to me.  Like he'd just solved the whole case.


    Out of state plates... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 10:14:44 AM EST
    will often be justification enough for an abusive officer to make a stop...let me guess, the plates were from a Yankee state back east?

    I don't think I've ever gotten through Virginia without being stopped with my NY plates...maybe once.

    Why we tolerate it I have no idea.


    just curious (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by txpublicdefender on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:39:30 AM EST
    Why did you let him searh your car?  Did he make it seem like you had no choice but to let him?  Did he threaten to arrest you if you didn't?  Were you just nervous?  As a public defender, I'm always trying to understand why my clients consent to having their car searched when they know they have contraband in it.  I'm interested in your insight (even though I know you didn't have drugs in your car).

    well (none / 0) (#31)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 12:02:14 PM EST
    I was trying to be helpful.  I didnt have anything to hide and thought he would finish quickly.  I didnt realize that he meant every corner of the car.

    I felt bad for him when he thought the lug nuts were drug items.  Maybe I was suffering from the early stages of Patty Hearst syndrome. heh.


    you and me both (none / 0) (#36)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 12:32:23 PM EST
      I can't count the number of times I've had a case with that scenario (not to mention the one where the guy confesses after waiving and then asks for a lawyer, but that's another thread).

      The response on the consent search is always "I don't know" or "I thought it would look suspicious if I refused." Thinking that looking suspicious might seem a problem  I get, but I don't see how they decide it would be better than looking really really guilty.

     I assume, although no one has actually ever said it to me (because by the time we're talking  it would be embarassing to say?) That in a panic they for some reason thoughr the search request was some kind of test and that if they consent the cop won't search but if they refuse the cop will.


    It's because we (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by JamesTX on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 06:40:01 PM EST
    are afraid. They have guns, they are trained to yell at suspects in ways that make them fear for their lives, and they have total, total, control of the situation. It is very difficult to look at an officer who's demeanor, tone of voice, and body language says he is ready to taser you, beat you, or even shoot you, and say something like "no". It feels like a suicidal move.

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#88)
    by Bemused on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 08:38:10 AM EST
      that scenario is not the only one, and in my neck of the woods even the most common one. I get plenty of cases where there is no good argument the consent was coerced or otherwise involuntary. Remember, too, cruiser-cams (a great many of these cases result from traffic stops)  work both ways-- they expose police misconduct but they also record events when the police do it by the book.

    I would tend to agree (none / 0) (#92)
    by JamesTX on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 09:16:02 AM EST
    that a person should refuse searches. Not only if they have something to hide, but just in principle. But what is expected down here is that refusal will result in a search anyway, based on some "smelt merrywahner" claim or something, which seems to be perfectly acceptable in court lately. As I said before, any arguing with them can get you shot, tased, or beaten, and it isn't clear where the line is that separates arguing and asserting rights. Therefore, if you are clean, it may seem easier (and wiser) to just consent. I keep telling myself that I will refuse when confronted with the situation, but I can't promise I would. I think it is important to refuse, though, because of the possibility of a disappointed cop planting something. That was why they made the amendment - so the soldiers couldn't get close enough to your barn to put contraband in it!

    We were discussing (none / 0) (#93)
    by Bemused on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 09:48:06 AM EST
    cases where the people were not clean (and thus became our clients).

      I am also not talking about cases where the circumstances show a reasonable person would feel coerced by intimidation let alone by fear for theire physical safety.

      I have had many of those cases too (e.g., your buddy is face down on the ground with a cop's knee in his back and another cop's gun trained on him when you are asked to consent), those present very different issues. I'm talking about people who are in fact in possession of drug or other cntraband and consent to search merely upon a request.

      It's a totally different case on a motion to suppress to claim it wasn't voluntary consent because my client fears cops even when they aren't doing anything to cause fear than it is when I can argue he was coerced by specific actions of the specific cops that would intimidate a reasonable person.


    Just so you know (none / 0) (#111)
    by Patrick on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 02:31:58 PM EST
    I will always ask for consent, even if I see something in plain sight that will justify a search.  It's good practice, not misconduct.  I also ask if there are any guns, drugs, bombs, hand grenades or small nuclear weapons that I need to know about.  Once a guy told me he had a rocket launcher, and it turns out he did.  

    was it dove hunting (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Jen M on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 04:50:25 PM EST

    Guess Not (none / 0) (#115)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 04:59:22 PM EST
    Must have been hawk season..

    Humor Training (none / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 03:21:03 PM EST
    Seems like a good idea. Good to see that you have passed that course. A little humor can save lives.

    I agree (none / 0) (#117)
    by Patrick on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 05:12:01 PM EST
    humor does save lives, but it's so much more.  When defense attorneys ask me about it in court, which they invariably try, unless they've already heard my answer, I tell them that I use it as an officer safety question as well as a tactic to relax someone who might be a little nervous over their contact with law enforcement.  Then I tell them about the rocket launcher guy and have never had a problem with it.  

    Where is the video? (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 10:58:31 AM EST
    Videos (none / 0) (#23)
    by indy in sc on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:34:45 AM EST
    ESPN's coverage with excerpts from the video here.

    Unedited dashcam feed here.


    Thanks. (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:54:52 AM EST
    I found the unedited videos here.

    The guy had his emergency lights on? (none / 0) (#71)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 04:50:40 PM EST
    Didnt the officer also (none / 0) (#22)
    by Amiss on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:31:05 AM EST
    prevent the woman's husband who was also in the car from going into the hospital?

    This whole scenario is just an outrage.


    from going into the hospital.

    Oh, sorry, you're asking if the cop (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 12:00:25 PM EST
    stopped the father of the dying woman from going into the hospital.

    The cop did not specifically stop the dying woman's dad, from what I could see.

    Not really sure why he just didn't ignore the cop like Moats's wife did, and go into the hospital anyway.


    The cop had a gun and he had already pulled (none / 0) (#33)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 12:19:56 PM EST
    it from his holster.  That's why Moats didn't just ignore him.  

    however I was talking about being unsure as to why the dying woman's father (who was just another passenger in the car, like Moats's wife and great aunt who did ignore the cop and go inside) did not ignore the cop and go inside, not why Moats (the driver getting the ticket) didn't.

    My guess is that he felt Moats might need some support in dealing with the cop.


    Cop had a gun. Ditto the father-in-law's reaction (none / 0) (#37)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 12:36:56 PM EST
    You never walk away from someone with a gun, especially someone who is angry or unreasonable.  And I understand that the women got away, probably thought the men would protect them if the cop tried anything.  

    OK, I'm not going to argue with you. (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 12:45:33 PM EST
    Not trying to argue with you, just answering a (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 12:51:25 PM EST
    question you posed:  "Not really sure why he just didn't ignore the cop like Moats's wife did, and go into the hospital anyway."

    Every Black person in Texas knows you don't walk away from a cop with a gun.  That's instant death.  This happened in/near Plano, a wealthy white suburb of Dallas.  Their attitueds towards certain people harks back to the 50's.  


    Moats' wife (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:00:08 PM EST
    says that the gun was on her when she got out of the car, and she did walk away -- so some know it and do so, anyway.  Thank heavens that she did do so, and that this power-mad cop wasn't even more nuts . . . probably only because he was on camera and in a well-lit, well-trafficked lot.  (He is now on "administrative leave," which in my town means a slap on the wrist and staying on pay.  I hope that the prominence of this family means far worse for him; he needs to be off the force.)

    The death that was not instant was that of a  mother dying of breast cancer -- at 45.  This is the tragedy at the core of this awful story, and we have to do more to save these lives.  


    Thanks for info on Plano (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:13:08 PM EST
    as I wondered -- and the context of the communities in which these cops pull this stuff, essentially are sanctioned to do so, is useful info, too.

    You are correct., unfortunately. The enclave I (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:26:29 PM EST
    was referring to up-post is very similar.  Lily White, hign income area, cops think it's their job to keep minorities from driving in town on "their streets."  Pathetic.  Plano is very similar but larger.  White-flight area.  However, there are a lot of professional sports people living in Plano - Dallas Cowboys, Dallas Maverick players, etc., but the cops don't know who they all are so they just get stopped WDB.  

    Sarcastic Unnamed One (1.00 / 2) (#44)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 12:54:23 PM EST
    Does not believe there is racism when it comes to police work.

    That's not true squeaky.... (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:01:27 PM EST
    My buddy Sarc just likes to see the facts and studies first...he's not just gonna take our word for it...and rightly so.

    I think he just gives the authorities more benefit of the doubt than you or I...he wouldn't deny there is racism, though he may disagree on the prevalence of it.


    Thanks kdog. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:06:02 PM EST
    OK (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:15:54 PM EST
    Well if you do believe that blacks are treated more harshly by Police, and suffer more arrests as a result, I have seen no indication of that belief in any TL threads.

    Like clockwork, whenever Jeralyn or TChris posts something showing racial discrimination by Police you argue that it proves nothing. Your mantra regarding this subject, in the face of statistical proof, has always been 'prove it'.

    Am I wrong?


    Yes, you are wrong. (none / 0) (#59)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:20:23 PM EST
    Well That Is A First (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:28:19 PM EST
    Good to hear that we agree on this issue and perhaps only differ on degree.

    Just for you, squeaky: (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 04:56:38 PM EST
    Indeed. (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 10:11:27 AM PST

    What the report fails to mention is that most drug arrests are not for using, most drug arrests are for dealing, trafficking, etc.

    However, if there is a study that more than 13% of those arrested for using are black, then that could be indicative of a problem.

    To those who now want to scream at me, understand that I'm not saying there is no racism in how our drug laws are written/enforced, I'm saying that this tidbit (the 13% issue) does not in any way indicate any such racism.

    Yes (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 05:12:54 PM EST
    I saw that, and indicated to kdog that I had overreacted. Wonder why you would think TL commenters would want to scream at you... lol..    

    As much as we disagree I still consider you a pal..

    Maybe it just seems that way... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:49:36 PM EST
    compared to the rabid anti-cop prejudice of a commenter like say...myself:)

    [ Parent | Reply to This |  1  2  3  4  5  ]
    Yes Must Be (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 02:27:55 PM EST
    I also fall into that category.


    All good. (none / 0) (#74)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 05:30:10 PM EST
    Really? (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:22:41 PM EST
    I have never seen him make that concession. As far as I have seen he and Patrick argue that police are color blind.

    Maybe it just seems that way... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:49:36 PM EST
    compared to the rabid anti-cop prejudice of a commenter like say...myself:)

    Yes Must Be (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 02:27:55 PM EST
    I also fall into that category.

    I'm so disappointed. (none / 0) (#50)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    Thanks (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:17:17 PM EST
    Although, Molly Bloom is the one who first pointed out that linking method awhile back.

    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:01:28 PM EST
    And, if the black man involved were not famous, we (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:25:33 AM EST
    probably wouldn't even know about this mean and abusive police behavior.

    I'm sure he's seen and knows how it ends... (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 12:41:46 PM EST
    when you don't keep your cool...but still not an easy thing to do, especially under life and death circumstances like this.

    "Insensitive officer"? (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Spamlet on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:52:56 PM EST
    The guy is a sadistic f^ck.

    Yes, I thought (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by JamesTX on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 07:03:35 PM EST
    that was a little too lenient description for this guy. The local media is raking him over the coals. They are putting up his lilly white boyish face in full color during all broadcasts on the story, superimposed on the highlights of Moats's career and life.

    The DPD has dropped the charges on the ticket, and the police chief is putting on displays of contrition. The cop's attorney has issued a "statement from him" that is very cool and really doesn't show remorse. Other quotes from the cop have been more recalcitrant. He even said he is just waiting for this to "blow over".

    This is just their standard way of doing business, so they just consider it an unlucky draw that the guy turned out to be famous. They are doing the same thing to some other poor person right now, and we will never hear about it.


    This cop (4.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Patrick on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 12:34:28 AM EST
    could well be a career a-hole, or have been having a bad day, or any number of things.  To judge his career based on this one issue seems a bit premature and overreaching.  As is sterotyping the department and profession.

    Is there anyone commenting here, that knows this officer personally, and can attest to what he is like on a daily basis?  I thought not.  

    I just spent an entire day in Oakland.  Judging by the comments, some of you should have been there.

    Fair enough, (none / 0) (#90)
    by Bemused on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 08:49:16 AM EST
      but the argument can be made that, even if his record is otherwise devoid of wrongful conduct, his specific conduct in this incident deserves severe discipline. I'd have no problem with his presenting evidence in mitigation of punishment including positive aspects of his career or personal circumstances that contributed to his failure to act lawfully let alone professionally in this incident.

      That doesn't mean in any way though that anything about his prior career or him as a person is relevant to judging his guilt or innocence of misconduct in this incident. That's pretty much the standard applied to criminal defendants when the question is whether they are guilty and if so how to punish them with things including loss of liberty. Police should receive no special standard of judgment when the issue is merely employment sanctions.


    I'm having difficulty (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Patrick on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 01:31:50 PM EST
    with this:

    I'd have no problem with his presenting evidence in mitigation of punishment including positive aspects of his career or personal circumstances that contributed to his failure to act lawfully let alone professionally in this incident.

    Where was his failure to act lawfully?  


    I wrote that (none / 0) (#120)
    by Bemused on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 05:52:25 PM EST
     before lobary answered in the affirmative that in Texas running a red light is a jailable offense and was assuming it is was not (stupid assumption, Texans should be glad it's not a capital offense, I suppose).

      If it is lawful to jail for that then it is lawful to threaten it. I'll stand by unprofessional and agree with most of the other adjectives used in this thread.


    The cop is 25 years old!!! He's a young kid. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Angel on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 09:04:34 AM EST
    Immature based on what I saw and heard on the video.  He's armed and dangerous.  A hothead who thinks he has absolute authority over everyone he encounters.  He thinks he did nothing wrong during the stop.  He's an idiot with a gun and a danger to society.

    I'm not (none / 0) (#103)
    by Patrick on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 01:30:04 PM EST
    saying it is an excuse, but some people seem to want robots as police officers, and it doesn't work that way.  There are times I can't help it if someone is intimidated by my presence, and in the scheme of things, most people are intimidated at some level.  Here's a simple test...Do you drive the same way you usually do, with the same level of comfort when there is a marked police car driving behind you?  I submit that most people would say no.  

    It's more commonly known have "command presence."  Physical presence is the lowest level in the use of force.  

    The officer absolutely had the legal right and authority to issue a citation for a violation the he observed.  That's what he's hired and paid to do.  

    Was it the best use of his discretion?  Based on what I know, probably not.  But to say he misued his authority also doesn't seem to accurate depict what happened.  The problem I see is that instead of using compassion and seeing the relative insignificance of traffic ticket in light of the events taking place, he made a bad decision, and issued the ticket.


    Not that much to change (none / 0) (#116)
    by Jen M on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 05:00:05 PM EST
    except to keep to the speed limit or slightly over.

    There are so many speed cameras in various places on my route now that even that isn't much of a change nowadays.

    Even so, I do get nervous seeing a cruiser behind me.  


    Well, (none / 0) (#121)
    by Patrick on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 06:30:57 PM EST
    let's debate self-control and proportionality then.   He's behind a vehicle that is obviously speeding, and it's clear to me in his mind, and based on his radio traffic that he was concerned as to why they didn't stop.  Additionally, upon stopping, more than 1 person leaves the vehicle despite his orders to get back in and with the support of a  U.S. Supreme Court Decision that says the passengers of a vehicle stop are detained as well.  Right there he has probable cause to arrest them for for whatever the applicable section is in Texas.  Now, he has some other indicators as well, the vehicle is operating with its hazard lights and it goes into an emergency room.  Two things he should have considered, and probably did initially.  

    But then somone, I assume to me Mr Moat, starts arguing.  I don't think Mr Moat did himself any favors, but I also understand that he was under emotional stress.  He asks for a driver's license, which although off screen I assume he produced, and insurance, which apprently driving without in Texas results in a vehicle impound.  Rather than just get what he needs, he argues and suggests the officer should go look because he doesn't know where it is,(Which arguably could be construed as consent to search the vehicle, and clearly was a lie since he knew exactly where it was when pressed).  He ultimately produces that document as well in some sort of binder which the officer must then sift through to find.  

    To that point I think the officer's conduct is pretty routine.  Even telling the guy to shut up, is not a serious indescretion in my belief.  
    However, once he verified there is a legitimate medical emergency, he makes bad choices in continuing his detention, not because he is legally required to end it, but because of basic human compassion.  I stopped watching the video shortly after that, because they get so boring to me. So if I missed something else I trust someone will happily point that out.

    I can only assume the Heinlein quote your talking about is:  In a mature society, civil servant is semantically equal to civil master.  I completely disagree with that premise but it apparently is one man's opinion.  

    Can you define what he means by civil master?  I can't.   Also, I highly doubt your taxes pay my salary, but if you want your dollar back, I can send it, just give me your address.  


    You can correct me if I'm wrong (none / 0) (#122)
    by Patrick on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 06:32:57 PM EST
    The misuse of authority was referring to keeping the wife from seeing her mother before she died, not in giving the ticket itself

    I believe, the wife is one of the two females who left within a minute of the vehicle being stopped.  Am I wrong?  So please tell me again how, based on your own definition, this is a misuse of authority?  


    If she was one of the two (none / 0) (#125)
    by Patrick on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 07:55:08 PM EST
    that left at the very beginning, then that's not the officer's fault. Sometimes people die before you can get there.  

    With respect to your quote of mine, that relates to the people who were still at the vehicle stop.


    You are factually wrong. (none / 0) (#126)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 07:56:27 PM EST
    She was not detained by the cop in any way that kept her from her mother.

    You are misinformed.


    No argument. (none / 0) (#129)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 11:55:28 PM EST
    I read about this last night. I suspect the (none / 0) (#3)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 08:35:52 AM EST
    officer was acting that way because he had corraled a vehicle full of people of the wrong color.  We call it Driving While Black where I live.  Very prevalent behavior by many officers down this way, unfortunately.  Hope the guy loses his job.

    Well, (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by bocajeff on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 10:41:33 AM EST
    The driver did run a red light. The driver was emotionally (and rightfully so) hot. The cop, at first, had no idea what he was dealing with and if the stories he was hearing were true. Up until this point of the story I give the benefit to the cop.

    My outrage came when hospital personnel and the other cop come over and tell him to let the people go and he didn't.

    I don't want the guy to lose his job over this. I just want him to learn that the person he stopped was just like him - no better, no worse.


    I'm not defending the running of the red light. (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:15:46 AM EST
    I'm criticizing the officer's behavior toward the family.  And cops who act like this - pull the authority crap on people and threaten them - "I can screw you over" - don't need to be on the streets "enforcing" the law.  Mr. Moats did nothing to warrant being treated the way he and his family were treated.  The cop needs to find another profession.  

    I will defend the running of the red light (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:30:41 AM EST
      He stopped and made sure traffic was clear before proceeding, and the circumstances can be argued to meet the criteria for a justification (choice of evils) defense.

     I'm not suggesting the cop was beyond his legal authority in insiting upon a citation and letting Mr. Moats present his defense in court. If that was all he had done I would not consider it an inarguable abuse of discretion by the cop. Purposely ignoring the man's pleas well after any reasonable person would have done so and thoughtlessly if not maliciously preventing him from paying his last respects when he could have done that and issued the citation is one.


    Yes.... (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 12:21:46 PM EST
    and is it too much to ask for cops to use their brain?  There is running a red light to get into McDonald's, and running a red light to get into the hospital...I mean hello?  Maybe there is an emergency?

    I'd expect any cop who witnesses a red-light being run to get to into the hospital parking lot to first ask "Is there an emergency?", followd by "Can I be of assistance?"

    Anything less is not protect and serve.


    I absolutely (none / 0) (#105)
    by Patrick on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 01:33:55 PM EST
    agree.   And once the emergency has been addressed, if he still feels the need to issue a citation, then get with it.  

    There has got to be some incentive (none / 0) (#10)
    by jefered on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:26:28 AM EST
    To have cops make arrests and issue citations that actually mean something.

    How about for every ticket they write that either gets dismissed or reduced, the difference and/or court costs come of the issuing officer's pockeet?

    Too many cops will write anything and everything and hope something sticks. Cops who can't find anything better to do than harass law-abiding citizens need to be forced out of their jobs.

    doubtful (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:36:04 AM EST
    Writing tickets is really how they get a lot of police work done these days.  It's just an excuse to run your name and see if you have warrants.  It's like the police lottery.

    It's also good for funding.  A poor city like Detroit (the metro area) was found to have the most speed traps in the nation in some study.

    Knowing all that, the powers that be won't be limiting tickets any time soon.


    the whole display (none / 0) (#13)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:43:58 AM EST
     of contempt for the man's situation is appalling, but what makes it worse to the extent that is possible (Well I guess not shooting his wife and the other female relative when they walked away counts for something) is that the cop was clearly in no hurry whatsoever and could easily simply have accompanied Moats into the hospital verified the story and if for some reason still believed he should ticket him simply left the ticket for him. You notice well into the incident, the cop says he will go into the hospital and leave the keys and paperwork.

    In Missouri right now (none / 0) (#38)
    by of1000Kings on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 12:37:22 PM EST
    Congress is working on a bill that would limit the amount of tickets that cities can write on interstate highways....

    it's a big step, but several cities that have less than 2,000 people (and one that has less than 200 people) are fighting it because that's how they make their money...

    Congress is trying to limit the amount of tickets that a city can write in proportion to its population...

    seems pretty fair to me, considering the interstate is generally the HP's responsibility, and not some small town with a one room jail and 200 citiizens that writes 3000+ tickets a year...

    it will be interesting to see if the pressure from these cities (a couple of which are quite rich) keeps this just bill from making it...


    Or made into community police (none / 0) (#70)
    by hairspray on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 03:04:52 PM EST
    officers who get to know their community and understand the problems so they can protect and serve.

    We should all pay our tickets... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 10:41:34 AM EST
    this way, maybe then things will improve out there on the over-policed streets.

    They have added late fees now (none / 0) (#20)
    by Amiss on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:28:49 AM EST
    Should they be able to do that?

    another thing that occurred to me (none / 0) (#42)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 12:50:29 PM EST
     Any Texas lawyers here who can tell us whether running a red light is a jailable offense in Texas? (It's not most places but I can't be sure about Texas).

       If not the repeated threat to take him to jail for running the red light (he also threatened to do it for fleeing and that is a jailable offense but at least twice the threat was for the minor traffic infraction) might very well constitute a fireable offense.

    I imagine the jailable offense... (none / 0) (#47)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    Is not running the red light but 'refusing to obey an officer's commands' or somesuch. Heck, couldn't the officer just say he was worried that Moars posed a threat to the wellbeing of the ER staff? (well, I mean, couldn't he say that if he'd been smart enough to leave the dashboard camera off?)

    And about the ER staff (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:18:37 PM EST
    I'm also appalled that this idiot cop's behavior meant that a nurse had to take the time away from patients to try to talk some sense into him.  

    So did the hospital security staff, but they weren't dealing directly with patients.  I do suspect that the security presence throughout may have helped to keep the cop from acting even worse -- and may have helped Moats to keep his cool.

    But that a medical professional had to leave her station and patients in an ER because of an unprofessional (to put it mildly) cop?  Terrible.  I hope the hospital expresses itself on that, too.  


    that would make perfect sense (none / 0) (#51)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:05:42 PM EST
     but more than once the officer said words to the effect of,  look,  if you don't sghut up I'll take you to jail for running the red light."

      By the time he got to booking, he might have wised up and used a "contempt of cop" type charge, but my point is that it is unlawful for a cop to abuse his authority by threatening  threatening to do something that would be unlawful.  in my opinion (but with civil dervice board and unions, firing is never easy) that should constitute a fireable offense.


    Yeah, I see what you're saying. (none / 0) (#54)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:13:10 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure the Dallas PD will find a way to lose this guy. The real problem isn't that he's a dick, it's that he's stupid. Keeping him around just means another headache further down the line.

    I think you may be right (none / 0) (#58)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:19:57 PM EST
      but only because the cop was unlucky enough to be a dick to an NFL player which made it big news. If it was Ryan Moats who blew his knee out as a freshman and had a regular Joe job, we'd never hear about it and,  stupid or dickish, the cop wouldn't likely face any meaningful sanction.  

    actually (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Bemused on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:25:17 PM EST
      he was unlucky because the guy was an NFL player but not a famous one whom he recognized. I'll speculate that if it had been a star on the Cowboys the cop would have been obsequeiously helpful.

    Yes. (none / 0) (#97)
    by lobary on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 11:04:45 AM EST
    Under Texas law, traffic violations may result in arrest. There was a highly publicized case here a few years ago where a woman was arrested for not wearing her seat belt. She was stopped because she hadn't properly restrained her two kids. Her real "crime" was getting lippy with the police officer.  She took her case all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court upheld her warrantless arrest for a minor traffic violation and said that the officer had probable cause to stop her and her arrest was reasonable under the circumstances.

    So, yes, a driver can be taken to jail in Texas for running a red light.


    thanks (none / 0) (#98)
    by Bemused on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 11:07:10 AM EST
      I'll remember that when in Texas.

    You don't need to worry. (none / 0) (#99)
    by lobary on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 11:28:48 AM EST
    Being arrested for a routine traffic violation is exceptionally rare because most cops don't want to deal with the paper work involved. Gail Atwater (the woman in the case I referred to) and Ryan Moats both broke the one rule you should always follow when dealing with the cops--don't challenge their authority. Doing so only brings out the authoritarian id encoded in their DNA.

    well, ny DNA (none / 0) (#100)
    by Bemused on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 11:50:00 AM EST
      may also be encoded with a gene sequence making it difficult for me not challenge arbitrary exercise of authority.

      I was actually threatened with arrest here because one evening many years ago driving home the police had set up a checkpoint solely for the "purpose of checking license/registration/ insurance because of neighborhood complaints about speeding." I was in a hurry and told the cop I did not have the time, was not violating any law, he had no PC or reasonable suspicion I was doing so, and that form of random checkpoint was not allowed under our state law, so I was going to proceed.

      His first reaction was to tell me I would be arrested if I did not cooperate. I then mentioned I am a lawyer. His second reaction was (despite probably doubting whether I was being accurate with him-- I was, but the state law governing checkpoints has since been changed by legislation intended to supersede the case law then controlling) to let me drive away.

       I have no doubt that the fact I was a clean cut white guy in his 30s in a suit and driving a nice but non-flashy car also made an impression on him.

       Simply from personal experience, when in the same town 15 or so years earlier, we would be routinely pulled over as young, longer haired guys, dressed in tattered jeans without even the pretext of a checkpoint, I  have no real doubt as to the influence of "profiling" of many varieties.

       I also have little doubt that although the cops would harrass young, white guys, it took a different form than it did with blacks. Recognizing that our parents might be "somebodies" even if we were not, the cops usually just took our beer and/or weed promising to "dispose" of it unless we wanted to use more official channels.


    I hear ya. (none / 0) (#101)
    by lobary on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 12:22:10 PM EST
    I am the argumentative type who doesn't tolerate obvious abuses of authority by law enforcement, but I've also experienced first-hand the cost of said behavior. I was falsely arrested and thrown in jail for over 36 hours (without being magistrated) all because my lawyer friend and I witnessed the police using excessive force in the course of breaking up a  fight between a couple of college kids. We were simply walking to our car as the cops came rushing across the street and through a crowd of innocent passersby (ourselves included) towards the fight, pepper spraying everyone around without actually apprehending the kids fighting on the ground.

    My lawyer friend turned to one of the cops and said "What are you doing?!?" and the cop responded by shoving him hard, which then resulted in the other cops turning their attention to my friend. My friend ended up on the ground getting his ass beat bad by a group of officers as I stood there helplessly watching. I begged them to get off of him and stop because they had the wrong guy, but they persisted in beating him.

    One of the officers on the perimeter was standing a few feet in front of me guarding the scene to make sure nobody in the crowd got near my friend or the officers. He gave me explicit instructions not to move towards him, which I followed closely. I did nothing but speak to him. Once the officers had finished beating up my friend and stood him up and cuffed him, I screamed out "that's a bunch of f**ing bull*!" at which point of the officers who'd beaten my friend came straight towards me, spun me around, and cuffed me. The crowd across the street screamed out in disbelief because they'd all seen I did nothing to warrant arrest. I was charged with interfering with the duties of a public officer, all because my friend dared to challenge those thugs. The charges were dropped.


    fortunately (none / 0) (#102)
    by Bemused on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 12:41:36 PM EST
      while we have our bad cops too, the environment here is not so bad either in terms of police misbehavior such as that being widespread or tolerance for it.

       I guess, to the extent I have a point it's that I agree with Patrick that we should not  make sweeping condemnations of police or even leap to secondary conclusions from spcific incidents, but that I think Patrick could be more careful in making that very good point to not allow others to infer police  misconduct can be excused in certain circumstances (I'm not saying he means to do that.)

      Every case should be judged on its individual merits and not viewed based on our preconceived opinions.

       Just as it is wrong for police to allow stereotypes to influence their behavior and attitudes toward individuals and should base their actions on objective assessment  of what the individual has done, we should assess police conduct the same way.

       To illustrate, it's no doubt true that as a  statistical proposition, a group of young men traveling at 1:00 AM along the strip where all the bars and liquor stores are located is more likely to be engaged in  a violating a law than a group of elderly women driving on Sunday morning along the strip where the churches are located. That truth though really provides no evidence that this particular group of young men is doing anything wrong. Similarly, our knowledge that many police officers do abuse their authority is not evidence that particular cop has abused his authority on a particular occasion. (Here we SEE this cop interacting with  Moats. We can judge based solely on that.) but, we shouldn't use this to make sweeping generalizations about cops.


    It's really (none / 0) (#106)
    by Patrick on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 01:35:34 PM EST
    that way in every state I believe.  

    It's not that way in any state i have practiced (none / 0) (#108)
    by Bemused on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 01:57:23 PM EST
     (I've never practiced in Texas)

      It may be that way in a few other states but in most, minor traffic offenses are not jailable. what happens is pretextualy or legitmately a cop pulls someone over for a traffic violation. the stop is legal and then evidence of something that is jailable might be found or the cop will assert that the diver or occupants' behavior constituted a jailable offense.

      In very few sates would a cop have the option of taking you to jail for running a red light; a citations which is a form of summons is issued and as long as you appea (or arrange to pay the fine by phone) no jail penalty is ever possible. now, if you fail to appear that is jailable almost everywhere.


    OK, (none / 0) (#109)
    by Patrick on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 02:04:53 PM EST
    to clarify, as long as everything goes exactly right, (Which it usually does) then there's no jailable offense.  But there are about half a dozen things that have to go right.  The driver has to have sufficient ID, has to be from the state, has to sign the citation w/o demanding to be brought before a magistrate...etc.   I will add that one or more of these things can be overlooked at the discretion of the officer.  Including interference/delay in their duties.  

    1000K, squeaky gave us a great way to link (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 12:59:09 PM EST
    the other day.

    Just write the word you want to be the link, hit your space bar, paste the http address, then put [] around the whole shebang.

    Looks something like this [link httpaddress].

    Can't Take Credit (none / 0) (#64)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:31:02 PM EST
    Molly Bloom is the one who introduced that method.

    get a short link at tiny url.com (none / 0) (#96)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 10:44:48 AM EST
    it's best to put text or word "link" not the whole hyperlink

    use the link button at the top of your comment box or get a short link at tinyurl.com

    easy way: type link. Rightclick on the word link, and click the link button and type in the url.


    Very Sad (none / 0) (#65)
    by STLDeb on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:44:28 PM EST
    I find this very sad.  I'm glad to see the police department has apologized but that does not make up for the fact that this police officer detained them.  

    What I noticed (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jen M on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 05:34:43 PM EST
    was the cop's obsession with Mr. Moat's 'attitude'.

    He kept going on about it.

    It had nothing to do with red lights or running, he just didn't like that they weren't bowing and scraping to him.

    To the DPD, (none / 0) (#77)
    by JamesTX on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 06:46:21 PM EST
    any assertion of your rights, any questioning of what is going on, or saying anything other than answering the cops' questions is "an attitude".

    it's okay for an officer to have a crappy (none / 0) (#79)
    by of1000Kings on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 07:29:00 PM EST
    attitude (and enforcement apologizers will say it's because of the danger)....

    I'm the type of person who mirrors the attitude/respect that I am getting...It might not be the best way to go about things, but it's what I do...

    If I'm giving respect by an officer, I'll reciprocate, if I'm not given respect by the officer then I just have to hope that there is someone else in the car to stop me from saying something really stupid...

    I see officers as just normal human beings...unfortunately not all officers see themselves in the same light...(how many times has the phrase "I am the law" been said)

    here is a link to something that happened fairly recently (2007) in my neck of the woods...

    and people wonder why cops get a bad name


    my favorite part... (none / 0) (#80)
    by of1000Kings on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 07:39:01 PM EST
    "In the State of Missouri, we have the right to stop anybody walking for a pat check, or stop a suspicious vehicle anytime. Okay? That was my probable cause."

    sometimes I wonder what country I really live in....seriously...


    The Price Paid (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 07:48:47 PM EST
    For keeping you safe. Don't you feel safer now?

    Back in the early 70s (none / 0) (#84)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 10:39:16 PM EST
    I lived in Overland Park. My best friend married a KC MO police sargent. They thought they were very funny in the creative ways they could slam an elbow into their target groups. He used to say when they would go on a domestic violence call, they'd stay outside watching in the window until the weapon was used on the unarmed party. That way they felt the rage had been released and it was safer for them to approach the situation.

    A very good friend of mine in Seattle is also married to a police sargent. The attitude is 180 degrees different.


    Honey, these guys are all about RESPECT. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 07:55:51 PM EST
    They think they deserve it.  Ha!  And if you don't bow down and kiss their a$$es then that is showing disrespect, at least in their eyes.  This kid cop (he's 25, I believe) is young and stupid - and that equals dangerous, very dangerous.  

    I've begun thinking that the position of police (4.50 / 2) (#83)
    by of1000Kings on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:35:29 PM EST
    officer needs to be re-addressed a bit...

    in my area there are a lot of 22-25 y/o cops on the streets...

    this just seems wrong to me...these kids don't have enough life experience to be po's...

    I believe that officers need more training...I think that before an officer should be on the street he should have a degree in social services (to go along with the time in the training academy)...

    an associates degree of some sort in social services (or maybe even psychology) would pay many dividends...
    (1) it would keep kids out of patrol cars until they're a bit older, I just don't feel that a 22 y/o officer has the capability of responding to a situation the way that a 28 or 30 y/o officer does...
    (2) a degree in social services would ensure that officers know that they're main goal is to protect and serve, not to arrest and citate...they would be better capable of understanding situations such as the one that just occurred with Moats...
    (3) it would ensure that the officer is probably at least of average intelligence, or at least close enough to average (I don't believe that the police training academy in my area does this--a  specific problem, maybe not a general problem)

    the degree can run concurrently to the academy training, but there would need to be a STRONG focus on the study of history, of cultures, of society and the meaning of being humane...

    obviously this would take some sort of a pay spike to offset the cost of the education...but I believe a lot of the officer problems stem from lack of pay anyway (what kind of person really signs up for a job that pays 20,000 a year?)

    maybe I'm way off base, though, and someone can correct me...maybe the academies already have a stronger focus on being a social server rather than an authority...


    Agreed. (4.50 / 2) (#85)
    by TChris on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 11:26:08 PM EST
    Policing will not improve until communities insist that their officers have at least a bachelor's degree (not just a 2-year tech college degree in "police science"), undergo a psychological evaluation and diversity training, and learn about the civil rights of the people they will be protecting and serving.  But this will need to be accompanied by a commensurate increase in pay, which is why (particularly in small communities) too few police departments adopt meaningful hiring standards, screening programs, or extensive education in anything other than "police procedure."

    Some smaller Wisconsin communities rely primarily on young, part-time officers with high school educations (who stay two or three years and then move on to better paying jobs) and veteran officers who have been fired (or resigned in lieu thereof) from other departments.  The low pay keeps the taxes down, but you really don't want to encounter any of these officers, particularly if you have dark skin or an accent.


    Beyond (2.00 / 0) (#95)
    by Bemused on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 10:08:39 AM EST
     not agreeing that a bachelor's degree is going to make any difference one way or another with regard to assuring emotional maturity and psychological fitness and that I believe adequate training and education to assure other necessary qualifications could easily be provided otherwise, I agree.

      Perhaps, the bigger problem  has nothing to do with whether officers are recruited solely from a pool of candidates who took a slew of courses having nothing to do with the job but are required for a bachelor's, but whether their training comes from  the "police academy" basically run by the cops.


    Ditto (none / 0) (#107)
    by Patrick on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 01:44:21 PM EST
    Of course I attended an academy run by a community college, and had to pass a polygraph, psychological test, physical agility test and a financial and personal background examination.  

    22-25 (none / 0) (#114)
    by Jen M on Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 04:55:09 PM EST
    what percentage are war vets?