Leukemia patient beaten by Texas cops

Post Reply New Topic

This would never have happened in California or New York.

Thanks a lot, TRUMP!

https://abc13.com/leukemia-patient-says ... e/4442447/

For a second I thought the headline was Leukemia Beaten by Patient.

The article says they told him he was not under arrest, then they charged him with resisting arrest. How can he resist arrest when he's not under arrest?

The police statement said that he was "arrested for Resisting Arrest". That's some circular reasoning there! It sounds like something out of Nineteen Eighty-Four!

This is all part and parcel of Trump's advocacy of "stop and frisk", that allows police to stop you for anything.

more details about the Galveston case:

League City man with cancer accuses four Galveston police officers of brutal assault

So you can be arrested and charged with resisting arrest because people think that you are a weirdo.

Police tell another story

A probable cause affidavit provided by the Galveston County district attorney’s office provides a drastically different account of the incident.

The affidavit states that Officer Brian Ansley, a field training officer, and David Roark, a probationary police officer, responded to a welfare concern on the 3000 block of Seawall Boulevard regarding a “Hispanic male who appeared to have been beat up and could hardly walk,” and that the subject — Walton — got into the water fully clothed.

Ansley and Roark observed Walton staggering on the far end of the jetty and that he ignored verbal commands to "stop,” showing signs of wanting to jump into the water, the affidavit states.

According to the affidavit, Walton did not comply, turned around and faced the officers as they walked toward him, and removed his shirt. Roark then grabbed Walton's right wrist while Ansley grabbed his left wrist to try and gain control of Walton. When Ansley grabbed Walton's left wrist, he pulled away causing Ansley to fall on the rocks.

As Ansley and Roark tried to gain control of Walton, “Sgt. Rojas drive stunned Mr. Walton in his upper back with her Taser to try and get him to comply with our commands,” the affidavit states. Walton was then handcuffed and placed in a police car.

The affidavit concludes: “Due to Mr. Walton's preexisting conditions and illness, he was not accepted at Galveston County Jail and was transported by (Ansley) and Ofc. Roark to (John Sealey Emergency Room) for medical care.”

Indeed, Walton was never booked or charged with a crime while at the station. Rather, the officer who slammed him on the ground approached him to apologize for the incident and offered to drive him to the emergency room, Walton said.

Walton, who said at that point he was “dazed and confused,” accepted the offer. He said two of the officers dropped him off at John Sealey Hospital at the University of Texas Medical Branch and told the triage nurse that they found him in the condition he was in.

With no idea where her husband was taken, Martinez called the police station, but they had no record of him being booked. Panicked, she called her sister and mother to come meet her in Galveston to look after her children.

Her sister picked her up to take her to the hospital to look for Walton when they found him at 3 p.m., sitting down slumped against the side of the Ocean Inn Motel. Walton had declined treatment at the hospital, asking only for alcohol wipes to clean himself up. He then walked over 2 miles back to the motel.

Martinez and her sister took Walton to MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston later that night, where Martinez submitted a police report to a University of Texas at Houston police officer. That report notes that when she went outside the motel to see what the police activity, she spoke with Sgt. Angela Rojas, one of the officers that detained Walton, who told her they “received a call about an individual that was stumbling and appeared to be beaten up.”

The Galveston Police Department filed a probable cause affidavit on Aug. 15 charging Walton with resisting arrest. It is not clear when the affidavit was signed and approved by a magistrate judge. As of Sunday, the warrant for Walton was still not publicly available.

A spokesman for the League City Police Department confirmed that Walton was arrested and booked for the resisting arrest charge in League City on Sept. 6, more than three weeks after his encounter with Galveston police. He was driving with his wife and daughter to pick up his son from football practice when he was pulled over and arrested.

On Aug. 17, a UT-Houston police investigator referred the police report to Sgt. Andre Mitchell, who works in the Galveston Police Department’s Office of Professional Standards. Walton’s attorneys, Joe Mathew and Brandon Cammack, also contacted Mitchell requesting an investigation.

Doug Balli, the assistant police chief for the Galveston Police Department, said in a phone interview that an internal investigation exonerated the four officers — Ansley, Roark, Rojas, and Officer V. M. Cadena.

“The internal investigation showed that there was no wrongdoing on the officers’ part and any use of force they utilized was justified to make the arrest,” Balli said. He added, “there was some mention that (Walton) had admitted he was in an altercation prior to the police interacting with him.”

Walton’s attorneys deny that, as well as the account presented in the affidavit.

“There is no way Isaac is going to jump in the water, the second he gets that pick line wet, he’s dying, he cannot get it infected,” Mathew said.

Hos attorneys say it is highly unusual for a resisting arrest charge to be filed weeks after an incident.

“They knew the complaint was coming so they try to cover their butts and end up filing a warrant for his arrest for resisting arrest,” Cammack said of the Galveston police. “What the officers have done is they committed an aggravated assault, and they did it with their badge under the color of law,” Cammack said. “If that were any other person off the street, they’d be facing a grand jury down in Galveston County district attorney’s office for official oppression, aggravated assault, you name it.”

On Sept. 21, Mathew and Cammack wrote a letter to Vernon Hale, the Galveston police chief, requesting recordings, body and dashboard camera footage, forensic evidence from any weapons used or discharged during the Aug. 15 incident, as well as any photographs taken of the officers in question after the incident. They also plan to file a complaint with the Galveston County district attorney’s public integrity division.

“We are going to find out everything,” Mathew said.

They have yet to receive a response from the police department, and because the resisting arrest charge has still not been posted publicly, Walton does not yet have a court date.

Effect on kids 'very sad'

Walton hopes that his leukemia diagnosis allows him to hold on long enough to see some measure of justice. Walton had to cease chemotherapy treatments shortly after the incident, his body no longer responding positively to the radiation.

Left with few options, Walton is scheduled to receive a stem cell procedure in hope that it will generate new cells to fight the disease. In the meantime, he receives blood and platelet transfusions every other day at MD Anderson Cancer Center to keep the disease from ravaging his body.

“If I don’t get this (stem cell) procedure, I will die,” Walton said.

Nearly two months later, there are still visible scars from the Aug. 15 incident on his wrists and abrasions on his back. Two separate taser marks dot his upper and lower back. But Walton says the most lasting damage is that it has shaken his children’s faith in the institutions designed to protect them.

Walton said his 13-year old son has been lashing out, punching walls in anger. His 3-year old daughter shuts down when he tries to talk to her about what happened, curling up on his chest in silence. His 6-year old daughter — whose birthday they were celebrating that day in Galveston — “thinks all cops are bad now,” the byproduct of witnessing her father return home on Aug. 15 looking like a battered shell of his former, sunny self.

Walton thinks about how close he was to dying that day in Galveston. He wonders whether he was stopped by police because of the color of his skin. But for the sake of his family’s happiness, he puts on the best face he can to soldier on.

“I want them to only notice positivity,” he said. “No negativity, none. Only positivity. The rest of that I’ll keep inside.”

“I have to tell (my 13-year old son) that you cannot put yourself into a situation (with police) because even if you are not doing anything wrong, you could not come home one day,” Walton said. “And that’s sad. It’s very sad.”


Source: League City man with cancer accuses four Galveston police officers of brutal assault

The bottom line: all they wanted to do was to beat/kill someone of color.

Law enforcement in Texas is either trying to be the "KKK in blue" or the Christian Taliban.

The problem with this thread, is the the OP cited a very one sided account. Then the OP related the responsibility of this to TRUMP. He said "Thanks a lot, TRUMP". This is a logical fallacy called "Non Sequitur". [From Latin, this term translates to "it doesn't follow," and it refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise.]

The Galveston Police Department is under local control of the Mayor of that city. The police involved were not state police or federal police but rather local police. President Trump is not a central part of this discussion. The mayor of the city of Galveston is a Democrat. One might use the logic fallacy "Non Sequitur" to lay the blame (if there is any) at the feet of the Democratic Party. But as I said, this is a logic fallacy.

Later the OP writes "All they wanted to do was to beat/kill someone of color." Then the OP states
"Law enforcement in Texas is either trying to be the "KKK in blue" or the Christian Taliban." Where is your evidence in this particular case for these very inflammatory remarks?

If this case goes to trial, there will be many interesting points to the case.

Did the police respond to a welfare concern on the 3000 block of Seawall Boulevard regarding a “Hispanic male who appeared to have been beat up and could hardly walk,”? If this response was called in through 9-1-1, that voice recording should provide collaboration.

What was the extent of his injuries and which of these were attributable to police actions? If he was undergoing chemotherapy, his body would generally be in a weakened state which would make him more vulnerable and less able to defend himself from a mugging or other attack.

Did the individual, Walton, show signs of jumping into the water? This would imply that he was acting irrational because since he had PICC line (a catheter that is implanted on a cancer patient's upper arm, used to directly infuse chemotherapy drugs) into the patient, jumping in the water would be very irrational. Therefore it would be important to ascertain what types of medication he was on at the time. [Was he on strong pain medicine at the time for Leukemia such as opioid analgesics, such as codeine and morphine, hydrocodone, oxycodone, hydromorphone, oxymorphone, methadone and fentanyl? This is germane to this case because this could affect his state of mind and cause irrational behavior.] Also if the injuries were so extensive, why did Walton decline treatment at the hospital, asking only for alcohol wipes to clean himself up? [Two of the officers dropped him off at John Sealey Hospital at the University of Texas Medical Branch.] Individual on strong pain medicine can be very confused and disoriented. He might be unable to communicate properly? By removing his shirt, he may have been trying to show the police officers that he had a pick line, where the officers may have seen someone who was incoherent, not following orders and potentially dangerous. Therefore his medical records would play into the court case.

Another bit of evidence to look at was did Walton cause the officer Ansley to fall on the rocks? Was there any visual evidence to support this assertion such as body cams, police car video recordings, torn clothing or injury reports to back up this assertion? Or did the Galveston officers beat Walton (police brutality)? Hospital reports will also be important here. Not all police departments have access to this type of video recording equipment, but if evidence exist to support this assertion, it would be supporting evidence.

If this case goes to trial, then the judge and the jury will be tasked to perform a complete and thorough review of all the evidence and render a decision.

So there are many interesting points to this case but trying to present a one-sided argument and then attributing it to Trump, Christians, or the KKK in blue is very inappropriate. This breaks Rule #2 for Wrong Planet "Personal attacks.
This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. The OP has personally attacked Trump, Christians and the men/women in blue.

Evidence for “KKK in blue”:

Victims of Bull Connor’s atrocities in Birmingham during the Civil Rights Era, Joe Campos Torres, Rodney King, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, Tamir Rice, Philando Castle, Sandra Bland, Walter Scott, the list goes on.

Evidence for “Christian Taliban”:

Continued attempts to restrict abortion, the so-called “bathroom laws”, laws against marijuana, prohibition of the sale of sex toys, laws against public nudity, clerks like Kim Davis who continue to refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the push to teach creationism in public schools, the continued existence of “blue laws” and “dry” cities and counties. There are still communities where dancing is illegal (just like in the movie Footloose)

As for Trump, he enabled and emboldened racists of all occupations the split second he called Mexicans “rapists”.

Last edited by Tim_Tex on 09 Oct 2018, 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

As I understand it the rules here personal attacks upon public figures are within the rules. Trump and Hillary have had horrific personal things said about them without the mods stepping in.

You are allowed to say something along the lines of "the Christian religion is fascist". You are not supposed to say something like "Christians are fascist".

All people from Texas are intolerant and ignorant! (Get the point I'm making?)

Notice that the words in this particular case were underlined.


What evidence do you have that these 4 men/women in blue were members of the KKK?
What evidence do you have that Christians Taliban played a part in this drama? Did you perform a background check on the religion of all the individuals involved?
What evidence do you have that Trump was personally involved in this case?
What evidence do you have that the police only wanted to beat/kill someone of color in this case?

I hope I never have to move to Texas.

When it comes to the laws pertaining to slander in the U.S., the defamation standards are different between individuals and politicians. People can sue anyone or any company if they feel they've been defamed or slandered. For everyday folks, they need to show the statements were wrong and published with negligence. But public figures are the subject of more scrutiny, so their burden of proof also includes "actual malice." They have to prove the libelous claim was made on purpose or with reckless disregard for the truth.

The creator of this board is allowed to adopt any rules he deems because he owns the site. Alex Plank has done this and posted this under the Forum called General Discussion and under the Topic called General Autism Discussion. It is titled WrongPlanet Rules. You must read this before posting. In the rules, he makes no distinction between politicians and other folks. So for the purpose of this board, the driver is not legal lawsuits but rather supporting its members and growing the membership.

Many message boards are even more restrictive in message content. Some individuals will join boards and take great pleasure in destroying any harmony that exists amongst its members. They flame the boards and cause many of its members to leave and abandon a message board. These individuals use their anonymity to instill hatred and discord. The subject of politics and religion are primary flash points.

Message boards are a form of social media. Without rules, message boards can quickly devolve into popular playgrounds for anonymous bullies. Most Aspies have experience significant bullying and this has had a great affect on their lives. The last thing they need is to be subjected to more bullying. In general, they are here to improve their social networking and share experience and knowledge about their condition called Autistic Spectrum Disorder or how their condition affects their loved ones. Many people identify with their beliefs and they perceive attacks on their beliefs as synonymous with a personal attack.

So for example, some of the rules of another message board reads:
1. Be polite. Rudeness is not tolerated and can lead to post removal or account suspension.
2. All members have the right to express their opinions and are encouraged to do so while maintaining a courteous tone.
3. Posts that are forbidden include, but are not limited to, the following:
----- Rude posts
----- Obscenity, pornography and profanity.
----- Any abuse towards our staff and/or management in any form
----- Posts that contain derogatory references to sex, gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, or endorsement of violence against any person or group, even if couched in humor.
----- Don’t break the law

I love this /s.

You make a personal attack against OP for his allegedly violating rule #2, doing so in violation of the very rule #2 that you cite, but that you have selectively misquoted out of context.

Here's the full rule that you declined to cite in its entirety:

2. Personal attacks.
This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not.

OP attacked an opinion, belief or philosophy.

You attacked him personally for making the comments and quoted a rule out-of-context to do so.

Let me re-emphasize that last part of the rule:

...attacking the person making the comments is not.

That's what you did.

It's clear from this that the prohibited personal attacks relate to attacking a person making the comments. It's obvious that you don't like criticism of Trump and the police. Your attempt at censorship and your personal attack on OP falls flat.

They are from League City and got a hotel room in Galveston!

Texas is fine. I'm not sure I'd want to live in Galveston, though.