12 year old girl arrested for resisting 3 men that attack her

Not all cops are like that now.. believe me!! They are despicable!!

I'm a parent of a teenager, Who would blame a parent trying to protect his/her child? Shame on Galveston polis to have the nerve to arrest the 12 year old. That child will live with the scars of being attacked as it is.

Dennis, I cried for that young child. There are few I won't ever forgive or forget. One is those who hurt a child emotionally and physically.

I wonder more about:

Why did the cops pick her up without even matching the description of the actual hookers?

Why did they not announce they were cops and question her as opposed to acting like this was a raid?

What is the depts justification for persuing them when the girl wasn't even the right person? How can you resist arrest when you aren't even supposed to be arrested?

Agreed.  I hope the charges are dropped and a complete apology fromt eh Police Department follows.

"I hope the charges are dropped and a complete apology fromt eh Police Department follows." -Spikgary

And Money!  Don't forget the money!   lol

It seems to me like they had ulterior motives.

And on top of it all she is being sued???
This is the kind of thing that would give me a bad name if she was my child.

Dennis C. Latham,

Yes. If I was there I probably would too on the spurr of the moment. But if it was my child, I would be on the war path right now instead of on this blog. As of this case, I am doing the right thing: Protesting.

Your information is wrong, Karl. 

She is doing the suing.

Todd-1973,

You are absolutely right.I read it again and you are right... Now I have to revise every thing I have said, based on that new perspective. I am still appalled, mind you, but the process is unfolding in a more normal manner than if she was being sued..

Thanks, Todd.

"each of those officers AND their commander should be fired. No paid leave, no benefits, no pensions" -G. H.

"My, you're strict, G.H."   And thorough, for doing all that research into the case.

Yeah, but I agree I don't think it would have taken me 2 years to decide this case. 

Open and shut.

This is one that should be played out in the media and where are they when you need them!

The lawsuit was just recently filed. 

http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/08/26/GalvestonCops.pdf

The Complaint was filed on 8/22/08. 

As to how long a civil trial will take, we are talking months if not years.  Civil trials are different than criminal trials, and (obviously) deal with different merits and laws.

I think the Complaint itself is rather interesting.  I was a paralegal and worked civil law in Florida.  I'm guessing Texas law is at least a little bit different, but the Attorney seems to really be trying to milk money from the system.  He asked for damages (money), more damages (more money), physical damages (bills), money just because of the wrongness of the act, interest on the money (both before and after the judgment), his fees (which are taken out of most monetary awards in Florida), and the cost of the lawsuit (which is represented in the fees of the Attorney). 

his fees (which are taken out of most monetary awards in Florida), and the cost of the lawsuit (which is represented in the fees of the Attorney)

No, fees and costs are different. Attorneys' fees are their hourly rate. Costs are actual costs, like the cost of filing the lawsuit, cost to hire experts to testify, etc.

I understand they are two different things.  However, awarding Attorney's fees usually encompasses both.  That was my point.  Often times there is a separate hearing in which the defense will dispute the fees and billable hours of the plaintiff's attorney.  That in itself is a whole process.  I had to type up and review a couple thousand hours of fees in a civil case once.  Not very fun from the typist's point of view. 

However, awarding Attorney's fees usually encompasses both.

It doesn't, actually. Fees and costs are typically sought and awarded separately.

I'm guessing then that it depends upon which sort of action is being addressed in court then.  Either that or I'm simplifying it.  For an automobile accident claim that I am going through, I'll be paying my attorney 1/3 of my claim if I win.  That includes fees and costs. 

Than your attorney is either (1) misleading you, or (2) is more generous than most. The vast majority of personal injury firms will deduct their actual expenses and then take their contigent fees from the net amount left from the award. You might want to look into that.

Children aren't responsible for what their parents name them, and kids grow, that's why you buy their clothes too big. Also, who is to judge how 'tight' they were?

Why is an innocent little girl named dymond and wearing tight shorts at 12 years old ?

Thats like blaming the rape victim for wear a skirt or being too pretty.

Why is an innocent little girl named dymond and wearing tight shorts at 12 years old ?

What kind of question is this and how is it relevant to the situation? Did it ever occur to anyone that Dymond, pronounced Diamond, isn't an unusual name and the thought that her parents may have named her this is because they felt their daughter is a precious jewel, which isn't farfetched or unusual. How about this one? The weather in Georgia located in the south, where temperatures are normally warmer compared to the North and other areas, could have been warm this day, or maybe her parents pay their heating bill thus enabling them to burn heat providing temperatures weren't warm and is the reason the girl had on shorts in her house,  because the house was hot and shorts accommodated the heat comfortably. Whether or not they were tight doesn't matter, because she was in her home wearing them, which is more than what some people wear when they're privately relaxing in their homes. The little girl exited her home not to go outside to play jump rope with friends who were wearing tight shorts too, but to check on something at her mother's request. And just because her shorts were tight doesn't mean she's a prostitute, warrant or validate the officers' behaviors. I am quite sure when they were given descriptions of suspects, attire was included and no one knows if tight shorts was this and I doubt if the 12-year old was wearing red patent leather 6-inch heal shoes.

Thats like blaming the rape victim for wear a skirt or being too pretty.

Difficult to judge on this argument. "To be" or "not to be" !?

Thomrob -- You have a lot of nerve saying:

Why is an innocent little girl named dymond and wearing tight shorts at 12 years old ? 

Don't you see little girls everyday with little shorts that say cheer on the butt, do you think that they are prostitutes. Not only that but this little girl went outside her house to turn on a breaker.

Have you ever went outside in your boxers to pick up the Sunday times? If yes, then maybe you should be kidnapped because you are probably a prostitute. See how that feels!

OK, nobody else is asking it so I will.

Was the van with three men just sitting there waiting for her to come out?

Did they turn off the breaker to bring someone out?

What was the real motivation behind the attack?

Excellent questions D Demilo.

Agreed, wholly.  I was thinking the same thing, from the beginning.

Unsolved rape/murder cases in the area should be re-investigated with a very suspicious eye toward the three "officers" involved.

It isn't far fetched to believe that 'bad procedure' could be evidence of serial criminal behavior.

When it comes to the state and their thugs, the worst-case scenario usually pales in comparison to what actually is going on. 

I have a much higher opinion of regular folks and usually try to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Those cops probably did this before and this is the only time that the girl fought back, or rather held on to the tree for dear life.

Not all cops are bad!

No... and not all cops are good, either, apparently.

Viki,

"I called the department and read them the riot act.  And I explained to my son that, regardless of uniform or badge or police car, or lights on top of a car, he is not to speak to ANY stranger and is to run from any and all, as fast as he can, to a trusted adult.  I'd explained that many times, but he was still blinded by automatic trust."

So, because the police officer was acting in the best interests of your son, and gave him a safety device in order to ensure or promote his safety, you flew off the handle?  Nice work.  Perhaps you should change your little regime there.  After all, your "trusted adult" might be a relative, which if I remember my statistics right have a higher chance of being abusive than a stranger.  Instilling distrust in Police certainly doesn't seem the way to go, as he'll keep that distrust as he grows.  What other people should he run from:  Doctors, firemen, nurses and teachers?

Several years ago, my son, who had been outside riding his bike on the sidewalk and up and down driveways, came in the house with a red light that could be attached to the back of his bike.  He said a police officer had pulled over and given it to him and had told him that he should have it on his bike, turned on, if he was going to ride around near the street at dusk or after dark.

I called the department and read them the riot act. 

Should we call it a thoughtful response? I'm not sure.   

And I explained to my son that, regardless of uniform or badge or police car, or lights on top of a car, he is not to speak to ANY stranger and is to run from any and all, as fast as he can, to a trusted adult.  I'd explained that many times, but he was still blinded by automatic trust

Trust is "inspiring" not "blinding". That's why it's so difficult (not to mention "foolish") to avoid. Almost like holding ones breath. "Breathing" (passing air through the air tract) could be just as hazardous as "trusting". Could it not? Does that mean we should stop breathing? It doesn't. No, not to those who have been gracefuly taught the skills of "breathing" (different times and under different circumstances). The same holds true with trust (+ other natural qualities/powers). I believe it'd be far more realistic to teach the child the art of "how to trust" - as opposed to "distrust "- and allow life (the relative experience and knowledge acquired by time ) to instruct its application (i.e Who, when & what to trust and what not). A planet free of "trust" is certainly going to be a dark one.

Thank you, Todd, for the thoughtful response to Viki. The officer did the boy a solid, even though it was unsolicited and may've frightened her.

Police officers are distinct from peace officers (I belong to the latter group, and we do not work undercover) and have greater powers. These 3 individuals did not handle themselves professionally, and that does shine a bad light on their department and their training. But all police and peace officer recruits are human and you will always have human error. I read nothing exculpatory about this incident, and it makes me hang my head.

ntq, you make a good point, and what I've taught my children is exactly that--how to trust.  But part of that means teaching them not to automatically trust any individual, but only those we've discussed are trustworthy.  Of course, one day I may find out that my own judgment was wrong, and that someone I told my child to trust turns out to be a monster.  It's a parents biggest fear.

Yes, and the fear shall live with us so long as we refuse to confess that there's far more to "Teaching Trust" than just that. That's only part of the greater teaching/learning process and merely involves an adult-to-child exchange of relatively solid experience and knowledge. It's a precious source of information but never sufficient on its own to win the required credit. In other words, have a satisfying end-result which, within the scope of the present discussion, is for us to feel relatively assured that our children know (in atleast 99% of cases) who/what/when they are to trust.and to what degree. 

Based upon my experience, to skillfully acquire the art of "how to trust", an individual (i.e child) must first and foremost learn "how to be trusted". A person who knows "how to gain the trust of others" is less likely to misjudge the party he'/she is to trust.    

We live in an absurdly safe neighborhood, and everyone gets complacent, even me, even the police themselves

Sadly enough this is the current trend with almost every one of us. Infact,when you look at it we're all living in "excessively unsafe" societies. Non of us are feeling even on average safe these days. After natural hazards I would say "distrust" is the 2nd most important cause of insecurity in our world today. Encouraging our children "not to trust" is equivalent to "digging their graves".  Nothing I recommend.      

As a matter of curiousity, what database did you use for this search?  I like to expand my sources of information whenever possible, and a database of that sort sounds useful, if it is publicly available.

Jarandhel - only part of it publicly available.

public portal is here    http://www.missingkids.com/

Thank you.

The police stopped identifying themselves a long time ago. Things you are learning now has been common knowledge in AfricanAmerican communities forever.Now it has started to "trickle down" into other communities.When AA's were complaining to the world about police brutality and bad behavior, no one listened and thought "those people must have done something wrong, otherwise the police would not have had to put them in a choke hold and kill them. The cops are the good guys and they feared for their lives". Don't you believe a word of it, it still happens in AA communities all over the USA, but you don't hear about it because ot the cover-ups. I could write a book (or two)about some of the dirty, low-down deeds that cops get away with, and they are getting worse each and everyday.I would never talk to them about anything.

Jazzie - I agree with you in point. However, it hasn't just been AA's, the homeless and poor whites and hispanics have experienced the same, moreso in "the hood" but other areas as well

I'll give you another example in Texas. Dallas Mayor Sarah Miller along with the city council passed city ord's as followed;

• suspicion of prostitution was any action deamed by police as indicative of the act of prostitution
• anyone caught in an area known for prostitution that can not show sufficient reason or business for being there is subject to suspicion of engaging in prostitution
• anyone arrested or ticketted for any offense related to prostitution or in an area known for prostitution was subject to their vehicle being confiscated and sold at public auction (this did not require a conviction)

 These actions were struck down by the Texas Supreme Court after action taken by the Dallas Morning News, Advocacy Ink and the Dallas Alliance for the Homeless

Sarah Miller is a long time personal friend and supporter of Bush. Under her administration, the only homeless shelter not targetted by the Dallas Police was operated by a friend of hers that ran it as a forced labor camp handling janitorial and custodial services to Dallas. The homeless persons recieved no pay, only a cot at the shelter.

What we have been seeing in Washington for the last 8 years started in Texas. A lot of good people have fought this for a lot of years and are just now beginning to make a dent.

Since when did police officers stop having to identify themselves?  No warrant for arrest, no showing of badges?

I don't know, but with all these changes taking place, maybe this one slipped by us. But seriously, I doubt if changes in these type police procedures were implemented. Apparently officers made them up as they went along and now I hope parents sue the crap out of them and the police department and win, for trainers possibly teaching officers incorrectly.

When I wrote win the lawsuit, I am referring to parents of the little girl...Just needed to clarify this. The language in the original response #15.2 can read confusingly to some.

Ann

I've lived in the area for 39 years -

It's Texas - Training - Galveston - won't happen.

It was not dark.  This happened at 7:45 on Aug. 22, 2006.  In Texas, it's still light at that time in August due to daylight savings time.

If I was on the jury that is not taking someone into custody that is kidnapping. 

"The father basically attacked police officers as they were trying to take the daughter into custody after she ran off." 

More lies I have seen nothing to suggest she ran off.

Even if she ran off it is warranted. We need to rememberthis kid went outside to turn on a breaker and would most likely have walked right back into the house. She was terrified, and I know I would have fought those men too. They didn't say they were cops and they were in an unmarked van trying to take the little girl.

I'll be the first to admit I'm biased in this one. I've seen this same scenario and worse more times thsn I care to count in Dallas. Children and teens attacked without provocation, including two teens attacked by police in a burger king for "looking like they were gang members", a black teenage girl attacked at work by a cop who claimed she short-changed him (after the manager counted down the drawer and found it correct), and I could go on.

When I read the headline, I thought it was going to be about some Middle Eastern country or a third world country, but this happened in Galveston Texas?

No, in fact, it's a 5-star  American action pack that's routinely welcomed and blindly practiced by the immitating middle-eastern (developing) societies. It's genuinely "Texan" and belongs to the "Wild-West" studios.  

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2008/12/galveston_false_arrest.php

This might work

you have to have a certain number of votes on your comments and articles/seeds, or a certain amount of time on the vine, before you're able to post links.

As a result of the Officers’ assault, Dymond suffered from pain in the back of the head, lower back pain, a sprained wrist with abrasions, and throat, neck and face pain. Plaintiff’s parents took her to the University of Texas Medical Branch for treatment. They arrived at the emergency room at 9:24 p.m. on August 22, 2006. Plaintiff was treated for head injuries and multiple contusions. The examining physician found that Plaintiff suffered injuries from multiple blows to the head, face, neck, lower back, left shoulder, and left hip/waist area. She suffered a contusion to the back of the head (where she was struck with a flashlight). There were abrasions on her arm and wrist. Plaintiff’s throat was swollen; she had difficulty swallowing, nausea and vomiting, and hoarseness of voice due to being struck in the throat. She had black eyes, scalp lacerations, tenderness of the vertebrae. She was experiencing double vision and loss of hearing.

5 www.courthousenews.com

Thank you for the link - This wasn't just a bad arrest this was a criminal beating.  These officers should be arrested for assault. 

I have now read the complaint, the booking report,  the filings papers and performed a background check on the members of the family named and the address.

• these cops were undercover narc's. Nar'cs don't arrest prostitutes for anything but drug related crimes.
• they were after a drug dealer and a group of prostitutes
• one of the officers involved was previously a Dallas Police Officer who was "allowed" to resign over  an accusation of forceable rape and abuse of authority

this additional information has been forwarded to the attorney of record for the family

Thank you for this todd, it clears up some of the speculation.

Okay, did I read that right? He threatened to shoot their dog?! Good god, what kind of cops are these?

they were after a drug dealer and a group of prostitutes

And there it is, ladies and gentlemen... your 'Drug Exception' of the week.  I KNEW that had to be the reason behind this.  It seems like whenever cops are going after drugs, all rules go out the window.  And that is clearly what has happened here.

What happened to this poor family is only the tip of the iceberg when we examine what our 'brave' DrugWarriors are capable of.  I'll say it again: It must take a real tough badass to beat up a 12 year old girl.

Okay, did I read that right? He threatened to shoot their dog?! Good god, what kind of cops are these?

They're the typical kind.  Cops do this sort of thing... ALL... THE... TIME.

See but I hate that all vice cops are lumped into this. My best friend is an undercover vice cop and he would never do something like this, he's disgusted by stories like this and suspects that these guys aren't on the up-and-up. One cop already has a "questionable" background to begin with.

My best friend has infiltrated gangs, cartels and the like and he puts his life on the line every time he does it. I can't tell you how many times he's had to get hooked on some drug, only to have to finish a case and do rehab all over again. He says that some cops, no matter how good their intentions, are immersed so much in this world that the line gets fuzzy after awhile and one day they wake up and they are the scumbags they're working so hard to put away. Probably why he says they have a very limited shelf life as undercovers... I can't wait till he's done with this work because I never want something like this to happen to him.

That's what I think Rachel.  I fear both sides of the story aren't being told completely. 

But wait - news sources in the US altering a story in hopes to get copy sold?  That stuff never happens.  So my opinion must be incorrect.

of course - if I AM wrong, then apologies to the family and I hope justice is served on their behalf.

Give me a break, even if this story was exaggerated the facts remain three plainclothes cops tried to arrest a 12 year old girl when she went to turn on a breaker. Oh yeah and beat her up.

Yeah, I'm not really fan of Fox News for their political coverage, but because this was a report about the complaint and the events surrounding it, its credible enough in this instance for me.

I can tell you right now that the father would be in jail or dead.  The death might have occurred if the undercover police officers shot back.  The jail time would have been for killing a police officer.  It doesn't matter if they identified themselves or not, as long as they were on duty.  As to "not knowing" they were police officers, think more along the lines of police officers being shot while undercover in drug rings or gang activity.  Another instance where not knowing doesn't help in law is the "I swear she was 18" defense.  Those are two examples. 

What would have happened if the father had shot one or all of the police?

I'm sorry, I know I keep saying this - I'm certainly not condoning it - but it is Texas. 

If Mr. Griffin had lived after the first shot, (you point a rake toward a cop here you'd be shot dead) carry licence or not, he would have been charged with capital murder regardless of whether the police had identified themselves.  I don't think (hope to believe) you would have found 12 jurors that would convict him of capital murder - I'm not saying the jury would acquit - (this is not my personal belief of right or wrong) just how it is.  Just like I don't believe you're going to find a unanimous jury to convict on resisting arrest and assault.

Sorry Todd, but those two examples don't apply. My best friend is an undercover vice cop and his job is much different than 3 plainclothes cops trying to arrest a girl, but not telling her who they are and why they are detaining her. It would be very easy for her father to see 3 normally dressed guys trying to hurt and abduct his daughter without thinking "oh, they must be cops". If I walked out of my house and saw 3 grown men beating and trying to steal my kid, I would not hesitate for a second. They are required BY LAW in those instances to identify themselves as police officers and read Miranda rights, not beat her!

Incidentally, I emailed my best friend this story and he said it was disgusting and that these men were an embarassment to his profession. He's rallying his colleagues to contact the Galveston police because it's cops like this that give them ALL a bad name.

If the action happened like the biased (yes, it is biased, since they don't have both sides of the story written down) news report stated, then I will wholeheartedly agree with you.  However, until I read the response to the Complaint by the lawyer on the other side, I'm going to reserve the majority of my judgement.  Questions I might think would be good to know:

1.  If the father never knew they were police officers, how did he know who to contact and the names of the officers?

2.  Did any of the officers report injuries to collaborate the story of assault against them?

3.  At what point did the officers decide to use force in attempting to detain the 12 year old and/or her father?

You are absolutely right Todd, I am in full agreement that all sides need to be heard, but for now I am going on the reasonable belief that these men did not identify themselves as police initially because the girl would have had no reason to fight back knowing they were police. I am also using a reasonable belief that in no instance would it take 3 men to subdue a 12 year old unarmed girl. No matter how you slice this, the cops were in the wrong... whether it was a misunderstanding that went horribly wrong or something more nefarious, who knows? If it turns out that the girl's and father's account is not factual, I will be the first to retract my statement, but I am going on what the article reports for now... and I am also a victim of police arrogance and the insistence that they are both infallible and above the law, so perhaps I am cynical about things like this, I freely admit.

That is a good point, indecent. I'm actually curious as to whether the cops had any marks on them. Because something tells me a 12 year old can't do much damage to 3 men no matter how hard she fights. If that little girl ended up in the hospital with all those injuries and these men had barely a scratch on them, they were in the wrong. Period.

And then to add insult to injury (literally) to this girl, they arrest her?! It just boggles my mind...

Lo,

Charging the victim of police brutality with something is automatic. After being beaten by the cops the usual charge is resisting arrest or assault on a officer, it's because the cops have to put something on the paperwork.

Unless they didn't identify themselves as police or didn't follow procedure, and then it's a whole other ball game. You can't resist arrest if you don't know you're being arrested.

3.  At what point did the officers decide to use force in attempting to detain the 12 year old and/or her father?

"They jumped out of a van and grabbed her. That is the use of force. I very highly doubt that the "other side" is going to come out and say "no, we didn't touch her" when she has hospital reports that show otherwise."

No, that isn't "Use of Force."  At least not by my book.  A police officer will usually "grab" someone to impede their progress or their attempt at flight.  The use of force in my perspective came when they hit the child.  By your definition, a cop would have to kindly ask someone to cuff up and hand them the cuffs for the perpetrator to do so.  Otherwise they'd be charged with "use of force."