[00:00:01]
JANUARY THE 30TH, AND WE ARE GOING, WE ARE AT THE CITY OF GARLAND CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MEETING.UM, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, AYE.
AND THEN ACTUALLY, I, I NEED TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT, UM, WITH REGARD TO ANY SPEAKER.
SO ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AN AGENDA ITEM MUST SUBMIT A SPEAKER CARD TO THE CIVIL SERVICE DIRECTOR AND SPEAKERS WHO HAVE SUBMITTED A SPEAKER CARD, MAY ADDRESS ANY ITEM LISTED ON THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AGENDA.
EACH SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED THREE MINUTES AND MAY SPEAK ONLY ON ITEMS APPEARING ON THE POSTED AGENDA.
AS YOU SEE FIT, IF, BECAUSE WE HAVE AN APPEAL TODAY, IF THE, IF THE SPEAKERS MAY NEED A LITTLE MORE TIME, YOU, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO OKAY.
PROVIDE THEM WITH ADDITIONAL TIME.
UM, SO ITEM NUMBER TWO IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER THE 19TH, 2025.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THAT MEETING? I SECOND THAT.
ITEM NUMBER THREE IS, UM, CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO ALLOW AN EXAMINEE FOR THE POLICE DEPUTY ASSISTANT CHIEF PROMOTIONAL EXAM TO PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY IN THE MEETING DUE TO DEPARTMENT RELATED OUT OF STATE WORK TRAINING FOR THE PURPOSE OF REBUTTING AN EXAM QUESTION APPEAL.
SO, UM, COMMISSIONERS, UM, YEAH, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE HIS REQUEST.
AND, UM, ONE THING THAT I'D LIKE TO MENTION IS THAT IN, IN A SENSE WE'RE SORT OF SETTING A PRECEDENT, SO, UM, ARE WE GOING TO, ARE WE ALLOWING THIS SORT OF ON AN EXCEPTION BASIS? I, I BELIEVE, COMMISSIONER, I BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE THE, THE REQUEST E IS AVAILABLE, UM, RIGHT NOW TO TALK VIRTUALLY.
I MIGHT RECOMMEND, UM, THAT YOU LISTEN TO HIS REQUEST.
AND THEN YOU COULD GRANT THE REQUEST IS THAT YOUR INCLINATION BASED ON, UH, THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HE PRESENTS TO YOU.
AND, AND MR. SPEAKER, FOR THE RECORD, BECAUSE WE'RE KEEPING A RECORD OF THIS MATTER, COULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF BY NAME AND ADDRESS?
CAN YOU HEAR US? UH, ARE YOU, I'M SORRY, I JUST JOINED IN, ARE Y'ALL SPEAKING WITH ME? YES.
HEY, UH, THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH FOR ACCOMMODATING ME ON THIS.
UH, UH, YOU SAID YOU NEED MY ADDRESS? YOU CAN GIVE THE DEPARTMENT ADDRESS.
YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY AN EMPLOYEE OF DEPARTMENT.
YOU, YOU MAY PROCEED AND ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
I, I, I GUESS CAN YEAH, I'M MISUNDERSTANDING I SPEAKING TO THE MICROPHONE? YEAH.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? OH, I CAN HEAR Y'ALL.
I JUST, UH, I WAS WAITING FOR THE, IS IS THE, UH, UH, CHALLENGE FOR THE QUESTION STARTED YET? NO.
SO, SO WHAT WE WOULD ASK YOU TO DO BRIEFLY, UM, IS TO PROVIDE THE, UH, COMMISSION WITH THE BASIS FOR YOUR QUE REQUEST TO APPEAR HERE REMOTELY, SO THAT WHEN THE ITEM DOES COME UP, YOU'RE ABLE TO SPEAK AND WE WILL, WE WILL RECOGNIZE YOU AT THAT TIME.
AND, AND YOU, YOU CAN BE BRIEF.
I THINK THE COMMISSION UNDERSTANDS GENERALLY WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT YOUR SCENARIO IS, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
UH, SO, UH, AGAIN, THANK Y'ALL FOR LETTING ME JOIN IN.
UM, SO I, UH, I, UH, HAVE BEEN, UH, OUTTA STATE TRAINING AT THE FBI NATIONAL ACADEMY, CURRENTLY AT THE FBI ACADEMY IN, UH, IN QUANTICO, VIRGINIA.
AND, UH, I DID, UH, TAKE A, UH, UH, THE TEST FOR THE, UH, DEPUTY CHIEF POSITION, UH, WITH THE REST OF THE FOLKS THERE.
AND, UH, I HAVE AN INTEREST IN, UH, I MAY WANNA SPEAK ON SOME OF THE CHALLENGES IF, UH, IF, UH, IF I FEEL LIKE IT MAY AFFECT ME.
SO IF, IF, IF Y'ALL AUTHORIZE ME, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
AND, AND, AND THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH.
DOES, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO.
CHAIR LADY, UH, UH, BRANCH HALL.
[00:05:01]
INTO THE DIRECTION EARLIER THE FACT THAT HE'S ON WORK RELATED, DIRECTED BY THE OFFICE OF, OF, OF, OF HIS SUPPORTS.SO THAT, THAT WAS MY JUSTIFICATION FOR AFFIRMING THE VOTE VIRTUALLY.
SO, UM, DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE CONSIDERATION TO REQUEST THE EXAMINEE TO PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY IN THE MEETING? YEAH, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE HIS REQUEST.
AND CAPTAIN TRU, TRUSTEE, WHEN WE GET TO THE, WHEN WE GET TO THE ITEM THAT, THAT, UH, I BELIEVE YOUR INTEREST IN, SPEAKING OF, WE WILL, WE'LL MAKE SURE WE REACH OUT TO YOU TO SEE IF YOU WISH TO BE HEARD.
OKAY, SO ITEM B UNDER ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION IS ELECTION OF A COMMISSION CHAIR.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY VOLUNTEERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO PUT THEIR NAME IN THE HAT? MADAM CHAIR? I MOVE TO NOMINATE MS. MAYORAL
AND UM, ITEM C IS, UM, ELECTION OF COMMISSION, VICE CHAIR.
AND, UM, MOVING ON TO ITEM D IS TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE ELIGIBILITY LIST FROM THE POLICE CAPTAIN PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION CONDUCTED ON DECEMBER THE 22ND, 2025.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THERE WERE NO APPEALS TO THIS FOR THIS TEST.
I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THAT ELIGIBILITY LIST FROM DECEMBER THE 22ND, 2025 SECOND.
OKAY, ALL THOSE, UM, IN FAVOR, AYE.
ITEM E IS TO CONSIDER ANY PENDING POLICE.
DEPUTY ASSISTANT CHIEF PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION APPEALS FROM THE EXAMINATION CONDUCTED ON DECEMBER THE 22ND, 2025.
AND I BELIEVE THAT WE DO HAVE SEVERAL SPEAKERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO, THAT HAVE SIGNED UP AND HAVE COMPLETED A SPEAKER CARD.
SO, UH, SO GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER, FOR, JUST FOR ORDER OF REFERENCE HERE, UM, I THINK WE HAVE ONE APPEAL AND I THINK, UH, CAPTAIN HELLMAN, I BELIEVE IS THE ONLY APPEAL THAT'S BEEN PERCEIVED.
SO HE NEEDS TO GIVE US HIS, SO I BELIEVE THAT CAPTAIN HELLMAN SHOULD BE THE ONE TO SPEAK FIRST ON HIS APPEAL.
CERTAINLY YOU GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR, RESTATE YOUR NAME AND NO.
AND CAPTAIN HOLMAN, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE SO THAT CAPTAIN TRUSTEE CAN HEAR.
OTHERWISE IT'LL BE DIFFICULT FOR HIM TO HEAR.
AGAIN, MY NAME IS HEATH HILLMAN.
I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, SPEAK ON THIS.
I'M GONNA TRY TO KEEP THIS AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE.
I WILL BE PUSHING THE THREE MINUTE LIMIT.
UH, AGAIN, I'M GOT A LOT TO KIND OF GO OVER IN THREE MINUTES, SO I WILL EXPEDITE AS FAST AS I CAN, OKAY? OKAY.
SO TO BEGIN WITH OUR APPEAL REVIEW STANDARD FOR THE DEPUTY CHIEF, OUR TEST WAS ISSUED BY WALLICK TESTING SERVICE, LEMON LIABILITY COMPANY.
UM, THESE APPEALS ARE SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SERVICE GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEW, UH, EXAMINATIONS.
UNDER WALLOCK TESTING SERVICE GUIDELINES, TEST QUESTIONS MAY BE REPLACED ACCORDING TO THEIR GUIDELINES, MODIFIED OR RE-KEYED.
WHEN THE FOLLOWING THE QUESTION INACCURATELY INTERPRETS THE SOURCE MATERIAL, THE KEY TO ANSWER IS INCORRECT.
TWO OR MORE ANSWERS ARE EQUALLY CORRECT.
THE QUESTION IS UNCLEAR OR AMBIGUOUS EACH.
WE'RE GOING OVER THE FIRST ONE.
UH, EACH APPEAL IS BASED STRICTLY ON THE WORDING OF THE EXAM, UH, AND THE QUESTIONS AND THE SOURCES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE TEST.
I'M NOT PULLING ANY OUTSIDE INFORMATION, I'M GOING DIRECTLY FROM THE TEST QUESTIONS AND THE SOURCE MATERIAL.
TO JUMP IN, UH, MY FIRST APPEAL IS GONNA BE ON QUESTION 51.
[00:10:01]
UH, THE SOURCE MATERIAL IS THE TEXAS PENAL CODE 7.02 B.THIS APPEAL IS, UH, SUBMITTED BASED ON, UH, THE BASIS THAT THE KEY TO ANSWER IS INCORRECT.
CORRECT? BECAUSE IT ASSUMES STATUTORY ELEMENTS THAT ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE QUESTION.
SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ THE QUESTION.
FOUR MEN ARE ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT A CERTAIN FELONY WHILE THIS IS HAPPENING.
ONE OF THE MEN COMMITS A SECOND FELONY A CRIME WHICH THE OTHER THREE MEN HAD NOT ATTENDED TO COMMIT.
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE? THE KEY TO ANSWER IS C.
ALL FOUR MEN MAY BE FOUND GUILTY OF THE SECOND FELONY.
MY APPEAL IS, THE CORRECT ANSWER IS A, ONLY THE PERPETRATOR OF THE SECOND FELONY IS GUILTY OF THAT FELONY.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND DIVE INTO, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE GOVERNING SOURCE MATERIAL.
SO THE HEADER OF THE SECTION SAYS, CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER, A PERSON IS CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR AN OFFENSE COMMITTED BY THE CONDUCT OF ANOTHER.
IF AND FOR BREVITY, I'M GONNA SKIP DOWN TO B BECAUSE THAT'S THE WHAT THE TEST REFERENCE.
IF AN ATTEMPT TO CARRY OUT A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ONE FELONY, ANOTHER FELONY IS COMMITTED BY ONE OF THE CONSPIRATORS.
ALL CONSPIRATORS ARE GUILTY OF THAT FELONY ACTUALLY COMMITTED THOUGH HAVING NO INTENT TO COMMIT IT.
IF FOCUSING IN ON, IF, IF THE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED IN FURTHERANCE OF THE UNLAWFUL PURPOSE AND WAS ONE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED AS A RESULT OF CARRYING OUT THE CONSPIRACY, AND IT SAYS IN THE SUBSECTION, CONSPIRACY MEANS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PERSONS TO COMMIT A FELONY.
SO WHAT DOES THE STATUTE TELL US? SO 7.02 B PROVIDES THAT CONSPIRATORS MAY BE HELD CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONDUCT OF ANOTHER AND A SECOND FELONY.
IF THERE IS A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A FELONY, WHICH IS JUST AN AGREEMENT OF TWO OR MORE PEOPLE TO COMMIT A FELONY, THE SECOND FELONY IS COMMITTED IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY AND THE SECOND FELONY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED.
SO MY WHOLE ARGUMENT ON THIS IS MY, THE FACTS ESSENTIAL TO THIS ANALYSIS LIABILITY MAY NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE OFFENSE.
LIABILITY MAY EXTEND BEYOND THE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE OFFENSE ONLY WHEN ALL REQUIRED ELEMENTS ARE PRESENT AND THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY STATED FACTS.
SO LET'S GO BACK 'CAUSE IT'S BEEN A SECOND SINCE WE READ THE QUESTION.
THE QUESTION PROVIDES US ONLY THE FOLLOWING FACTS.
FOUR MEN ATTEMPTED TO COMMIT A FELONY, ONE MAN COMMITS A SECOND FELONY, AND THE OTHER THREE MEN DID NOT ATTEND FOR THAT SECOND FELONY TO OCCUR.
WHAT DOES THE QUESTION NOT STATE? THE QUESTION DOES NOT STATE THAT THE SECOND FELONY WAS COMMITTED IN FURTHERANCE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSPIRACY, NOR DOES IT STATE THAT THE SECOND FELONY WAS ONE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED BY THE OTHERS BEFORE LIABILITY CAN EXTEND BEYOND THE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE OFFENSE.
ALL REQUIRED ELEMENTS MUST BE SUPPORTED BY THE STATE OF FACTS.
THE QUESTION DOES NOT STATE THAT THE SECOND FELONY WAS COMMITTED IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY OR THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED AS SUCH.
THE KEY TO ANSWER RELIES ON ELEMENTS THAT ARE NOT STATED.
THEREBY IT'S VIOLATING WALL EX OWN CRITERIA OF RE RELATING TO ACCURACY AND NOT BEING AMBIGUOUS UNDER THE PROPER APPLICATION OF 7.02 B, LIABILITY CANNOT EXTEND BEYOND THE INDIVIDUAL WHO COMMITTED THE SECOND FELONY.
ACCORDINGLY, ONLY THE PERPETRATOR OF THE SECOND FELONY IS GUILTY OF THAT FELONY QUESTION.
A ONLY THE PERPETRATOR OF THE SECOND FELONY IS GUILTY OF THAT FELONY IS THE CORRECT ANSWER AS IT IS WRITTEN.
SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, AND A LOT OF THESE, ANYTIME YOU'RE READING THE, THE STATUTE, I LIKE TO PUT IN THE SCENARIOS.
SO I PAINTED A VERY SIMPLE SCENARIO.
IT'S ONLY A FEW SENTENCES LONG TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND MY POINT I'M MAKING.
SO LET'S SAY WE HAVE THREE JUVENILES.
THEY AGREE TO STEAL A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT'S IN A PARKING, UH, THAT'S IN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.
ALL THREE OF THEM JUMP IN THERE.
UH, SO THEY ALL ARE GUILTY OF STEALING THE MOTOR VEHICLE.
THEY AGREED TO IT, THEY SAW IT THERE.
SO IT CHECKS THAT BOX WHILE THEY'RE DRIVING AROUND.
JUVENILE ONE WHO'S IN THE PASSENGER SEAT OPENS UP THE GLOVE BOX, FINDS OUT THAT THERE'S A HANDGUN IN THERE.
HE REMOVES THE HANDGUN AND IS PLAYING WITH IT, POINTS IT OUT THE WINDOW AND, UH,
[00:15:01]
RECKLESSLY DISCHARGES THE, UH, FIREARM OUT THE WINDOW.JUVENILE TWO AND JUVENILE THREE WERE UNAWARE OF THIS HANDGUN BEING IN THERE.
THEY WERE ONLY THERE TO STILL TAKE A JOY RIDE IN THE CAR.
UM, THEY WERE UNAWARE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE HANDGUN AND THEY DID NOT ENCOURAGE OR DID, THEY DID NOT.
THEY'RE NOT THE ONES THAT DISCHARGED THE FIREARM.
AS A RESULT, THE ONLY ONE THAT COULD BE CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FIRING OF THE F FIREARM IS THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY DID IT.
THEY'RE ALL GUILTY OF THE UMV STEALING THE VEHICLE, BUT THE ONLY ONE THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR, FOR THE FIREARM FELONY IS THE ONE THAT ACTUALLY DID IT.
'CAUSE THE OTHER TWO HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING OR PREVENTING IT.
IT WASN'T PART OF THE CONSPIRACY TO STEAL THE CAR, AND THERE WAS NOTHING LEADING THEM TO KNOW THAT THAT WAS GONNA HAPPEN.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM? NO.
AND WE HAVE OTHER SPEAKERS, SO THAT HAVE SIGNED UP TO ALSO SPEAK UP TO THIS SPECIFIC, UM, ITEM, I BELIEVE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE OR AM I, IF YOU CAN COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME.
SO I'M GONNA TRY TO BE AS PRECISE ON THIS AS I CAN IN RESPECT FOR Y'ALL'S TIME AND FOR CAPTAIN HELLMAN.
UM, HE'S KIND OF LAID OUT ALL THE ISSUES THAT ARE ON THE QUESTION.
ALLALL HAVE ALREADY KIND OF SEEN THAT AS WELL AS THE, UH, FACTS OF, UH, THE LAW.
UH, MY ARGUMENT IS ALL ABOUT THE STATED QUESTION.
THE KEY ANSWER IS CORRECT AS WRITTEN.
UM, AS WE GO THROUGH THESE QUESTIONS, UH, THE SEVERAL THINGS I WANNA KIND OF REITERATE THAT CAPTAIN HELLMAN'S ALREADY TALKED ABOUT, BUT ALSO, UH, MAYBE EXPAND UPON THEM A LITTLE BIT.
UH, HE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT FOUR MEN ARE ATTEMPTED TO COMMIT A CERTAIN FELONY, WHICH DOES GIVE US THE CONSPIRACY, WHICH DOES POINT TOWARDS 7.02.
SO THAT PART'S ALREADY ESTABLISHED.
THE KEY WORDS THAT I THINK I DIFFERENTIATE ON IS THE VERY NEXT PHRASE, WHICH IS WHILE THIS IS HAPPENING.
AND SO THE CONTINUE OF THE QUESTION IS, WHILE THIS IS HAPPENING, ANOTHER FELONY IS COMMITTED.
IT'S NOT A SEPARATE TIME, IT'S NOT EVEN DURING A SEPARATE LOCATION BY SAYING THE PHRASE, WHILE THIS IS HAPPENING, THEY ARE CONTEMPORARY ACTIVITIES.
THESE ARE THINGS HAPPENING AT THE SAME TIME IN A SEQUENCE.
THEY FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THAT A SECOND FELONY OCCURS AFTER THE FIRST FELONY.
THE LANGUAGE IS NOT ANOTHER FELONY, AN UNRELATED FELONY.
IT'S CLEARLY A SECOND FELONY, WHICH IS A SEQUENCE OF FELONIES IN A ROW.
TO ME THAT IS ESTABLISHES THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS.
IT ESTABLISHES THAT WHILE THEY'RE GOING ON.
I ALSO THINK THAT IN THAT ESTABLISHES THE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE ORIGINAL OFFENSE.
UH, THE ELEMENT THAT, UH, ALSO COMES UP IS THE FINAL PART OF THIS QUESTION, WHICH IS THE ANSWERS THAT ARE AVAILABLE BECAUSE OUR TASK IS TO FIND THE BEST ANSWER.
UM, GOING THROUGH THEM QUESTION, I'LL KIND OF DO THEM IN ALPHABETICAL OR THE WAY THEY'RE PRESENTED.
THE FIRST ONE, UH, WHICH WAS KEYED IN CARRERA, WAS KEYED AS BEING AN INCORRECT ANSWER IS ONLY THE PERPETRATOR OF THE SECOND FELONY IS GUILTY OF THAT FELONY.
THE CHALLENGE IN THAT IS IT IS LEGALLY NARROW AND IT ROBS THE LEGISLATURE OR THE COURTS OF ANY ABILITY TO EVER CHARGE THE OTHER PEOPLE INVOLVED IN IT.
CAPTAIN HELMAN INDICATES THAT HE FEELS THERE'S NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE IN THE ORIGINAL QUESTION.
I BELIEVE THAT THE SEQUENCING OF THE OFFENSES, THE SEQUENCING AND THE TITLING OF THEM, FELONY NUMBER ONE, FELONY NUMBER TWO, CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THEM BEING INVOLVED.
UM, THE USE OF THE WORLD WHILE MAKES 'EM CONTEMPORARY.
SO IT'S NOT A TOTALLY UNRELATED ISSUE.
UH, THE SCENARIO HE PRESENTED OF INDIVIDUALS STEALING A CAR AND THEN SHOOTING A GUN, AT SOME POINT THAT GUN WILL BE IN PLAY.
AND THE CONCLUSION THAT THAT OTHER PEOPLE IN THE CAR CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH THAT CRIME IS A MATTER FOR THE COURT.
IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A MATTER FOR THE STATUTE AS WRITTEN.
UH, THE OTHER KEY PART OF THAT ONE, MOVING DOWN TO THE OTHER QUESTIONS, THE TEXAS LAW PROVIDES NO SPECIFIC GUIDANCE ON THE, ON THIS SITUATION, CLEARLY IS WRONG.
UH, IT'S FACTUALLY FALSE BECAUSE CLEARLY 7.02 CLEARLY ADDRESSES THAT.
SO THERE'S NO WAY THAT'S IN PLAY IS A LEGITIMATELY WRONG ANSWER ON THIS KEY QUESTION, WHICH GETS THIS NUMBER C THAT SIMPLY STATES ALL FOUR MEN MAY BE FOUND TO BE GUILTY OF THE SECOND FELONY.
THE WORD MAY ALLOWS US TO INCORPORATE FACTS THAT ARE NOT IN THAT SITUATION.
IT ALLOWS US TO BRING IN ALL OTHER THINGS.
IT DOESN'T SAY THEY ARE GUILTY.
IT DOESN'T SAY THEY SHALL BE GUILTY, NOR DOES IT SAY THEY SHALL BE TRIED.
WHAT THE QUESTION'S ASKING US IS WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS IS TRUE? AND THE STATEMENT THAT ALL FOUR MEN MAY BE GUILTY IS FACTUALLY TRUE AS WRITTEN, AND IT INCLUDES MORE CIRCUMSTANCES THAN A, WHICH I THINK IS LEGAL STATUTORILY NARROW IN THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN.
UM, OUR CHALLENGE ON THIS ONE, AS ALWAYS IS NOT A ROTE RECITATION OF THE, OF THE LAW.
IT'S OUR ABILITY TO APPLY THE LAW TO SCENARIOS THAT ARE GIVEN BEFORE US.
THIS IS CLEARLY A SCENARIO GIVEN NOT A SECONDARY SCENARIO.
AND I STILL BELIEVE THAT A IS FACTUALLY NARROW, DOES NOT ALLOW IT TO FULLY DEMONSTRATE ALL THE LAW AND THE CAPABILITIES OF IT.
C DOES ALLOW FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR CONSPIRACIES WHERE
[00:20:01]
THE STATE CLEARLY WANTS US TO BE ABLE TO HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE FOR COMMITTING, COMMITTING MULTIPLE FELONIES AS PART OF A GROUP.ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM? CHAIRMAN? THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN, I MIGHT AHEAD, I MIGHT SUGGEST THAT IF CAPTAIN TRUSTEE WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, THAT GIVEN THE LAWS OF ANYTHING THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO GO WRONG WILL AND WE LOSE CONNECTIVITY.
THAT'S THAT WE LET HIM SPEAK WHILE WE HAVE HIM.
IF YOU COULD GO AHEAD AND, UM, RESTATE YOUR NAME AND YOU PROCEED TO SAY HELLO.
YEAH, I
UH, CAPTAIN, TRUSTEE, UH, UH, I, UH, AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT CAPTAIN MCCAULEY SAID.
I I THINK THAT THE, UH, UH, THE KEY TO ANSWER IS THE ONLY CORRECT ANSWER ON THIS.
UH, UH, FOR EVERYTHING THAT CAPTAIN MCCAULEY SAID.
UH, THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD ADD IS, UH, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT A HAS ANY POSSIBILITY OF BEING, UH, A TRUE STATEMENT OR WHAT THE QUESTION WAS ASKING.
SO I THINK THE ONLY, UH, TRUE STATEMENT OF THOSE THREE CHOICES IS C.
SO I THINK THAT, UH, QUESTION 51 SHOULD STAND AS IT WAS KEYED, UH, C BEING THE CORRECT ANSWER.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR CAPTAIN? TRUSTEE? YEAH.
AND I HAVE TWO MORE SPEAKER CARDS.
UH, FIRST I'D LIKE TO, TO THANK Y'ALL FOR LETTING US COME UP HERE AND SPEAK.
UM, IT'S ALWAYS AN AWKWARD SITUATION BECAUSE ALL OF US ARE FRIENDS.
UM, AND SO WE'LL BE FRIENDS AFTER THIS AS WELL.
NO MATTER WHAT Y'ALL DECIDE, UH, FOR THIS QUESTION AND GOING INTO THE TEST.
THE CHALLENGE FOR THESE TESTS ARE THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE.
WE, WE COME INTO THE TEST WITH KNOWLEDGE OF SUPREME COURT DECISIONS AND KNOWLEDGE FROM THE POLICE ACADEMY, KNOWLEDGE FROM WORKING AS OFFICERS FOR A LONG TIME.
AND THE, THE CHALLENGE WHEN YOU'RE TAKING THE TEST IS YOU CAN'T BRING ANYTHING ELSE OUTSIDE THE SOURCE MATERIAL.
SO WE SPEND ALL THIS TIME STUDYING THE BOOKS.
THE TEST WRITERS ARE NOT TRYING TO TRICK US.
THEY'RE TRYING TO SEE IF WE RECOGNIZE THE SOURCE MATERIAL THAT, THAT WE'VE BEEN STUDYING AND IF WE CAN APPLY IT AND RECOGNIZE IT WHEN WE SEE IT AGAIN.
SO ON THIS QUESTION, IT REFERENCES 7.02 FROM THE TEXAS PENAL CODE.
AND THE TITLE OF 7 0 2 IS CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONDUCT OF ANOTHER.
SO IT'S TRYING TO, THE PURPOSE OF THIS, IT'S NOT A CRIMINAL VIOLATION.
THIS ISN'T LIKE A MURDER OR ANOTHER SPECIFIC LAW.
THIS IS HELPING US APPLY ALL THE LAWS.
'CAUSE IT COULD BE ANY NUMBER OF THEM.
AND EACH ONE OF THOSE HAS THEIR OWN ELEMENTS.
SO THIS IS JUST AN OVERALL, OVERALL, UH, THEME FOR US TO UNDERSTAND AS OFFICERS THAT SOMETIMES YOU CAN BE CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SOMETHING THAT YOUR ACCOMPLICE OR YOUR PARTNER DID, AND NOT YOU YOURSELF.
SO WHEN THE QUESTION IT LAYS OUT THE FOUR MEN ARE ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT A CERTAIN FELONY WHILE THIS IS HAPPENING, ONE OF THE MEN COMMITS A SECOND FELONY A CRIME WHICH THE OTHER THREE HAD NOT INTENDED TO COMMIT.
SO THAT'S A SCENARIO THAT THEY'RE GIVING US.
BUT THE TRUE QUESTION HERE IS THE LAST SENTENCE, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE? SO NOW WE'VE GOTTA LOOK AT THREE CHOICES AND DETERMINE IF IF THEY'RE TRUE OR THEY'RE FALSE.
AND SO THERE'S SOME INDICATORS WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT A TRUE FALSE QUESTION.
ONE, NEVER ONLY ALWAYS THOSE TYPES OF WORDS.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT THEY USED HERE TO KIND OF MAKE SURE THEY'RE PAINTING YOU IN A CORNER.
ARE YOU SAYING WITH A, IT SAYS ONLY THE PERPETRATOR OF THE SECOND FELONY IS GUILTY OF THAT FELONY.
SO IF YOU BELIEVE THAT, THEN YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THAT CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONDUCT OF ANOTHER EXISTS.
RIGHT? THEY WROTE IT SO NARROW.
SO WHEN I WAS TAKING THE TEST, I RECOGNIZED, OKAY, THEY'RE GIVING ME A KEYWORD ONLY IT NEGATES THE ENTIRE SECTION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO THAT CAN'T POSSIBLY BE TRUE.
SO I MOVE TO THE NEXT TEXAS LAW PROVIDES NO SPECIFIC GUIDANCE ON THIS SITUATION.
WELL, I KNEW THAT WAS NOT TRUE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THAT WHOLE SECTION'S ABOUT.
SO THAT ALREADY POINTED ME TO C.
SO NOW I LOOK AT C AND C ALSO HAS A VERY KEY WORD FOR A SITUATION LIKE THIS.
AND THAT WAS ALL FOUR MEN MAY BE FOUND GUILTY OF THE SECOND FELONY, WHICH THAT ALLOWS FOR ALL THE THINGS THAT CAPTAIN HELLMAN POINTED OUT.
THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL THINGS LIKE IT WOULD NEED TO BE REASONABLY ANTICIPATED AND ALL THAT, THAT'S WHAT MAY ENCOMPASSES.
BUT WHEN YOU, IF YOU LOOKED AT JUST
[00:25:01]
QUESTION A OR ANSWER A WHERE IT SAYS ONLY IT LOCKS YOU IN AND IT NEGATES THE ENTIRE REST OF THE SECTION, WHICH WOULD, UH, PROVIDE YOU BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF ANOTHER.SO I FELT LIKE THIS QUESTION WAS CONSTRUCTED, CONSTRUCTED WELL, UH, THEY GAVE US SOME POINTER WORDS IN THERE TO HELP US SO THAT YOU COULD UNDERSTAND AND, AND MAKE A GOOD DECISION.
UH, AND ALSO AS FAR AS I KNOW, AND I THINK THIS IS RELEVANT TO THIS, NINE PEOPLE TOOK THE TEST, EIGHT PEOPLE GOT IT CORRECT.
ONLY ONE PERSON MISSED THIS QUESTION.
UM, AND I THINK IT'S JUST 'CAUSE HE READ INTO IT.
AND I HAVE ONE, UH, OTHER SPEAKER CARD.
I DON'T WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS SIDE.
SO WE HAVE, UM, ANOTHER APPEAL ON QUESTION NUMBER 57, BUT UM, DO WE WANNA GO, ARE THERE, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON NUMBER QUESTION 51 FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? CAN I SPEAK? IS THERE ANY WAY CAN MAKE COUNTER THAT'S THAT'S UP TO YOU.
UM, YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S FINE.
THANK YOU FOR, AND I'LL KEEP THIS VERY BRIEF.
GO AHEAD AND RESTATE YOUR NAME.
I'M A CAPTAIN OF THE GARLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT.
UM, YOU CANNOT READ INTO THESE QUESTIONS.
YOU'RE ONLY GIVEN A SPECIFIED QUESTION AND YOU HAVE TO GO OFF OF THAT.
AND THE QUESTION THAT WAS PROVIDED DID NOT ALLOW FOR CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY TO BE TRANSFERRED.
IF THEY WOULD'VE WROTE IT IN MORE DETAIL, IT WOULD HAVE, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE STATUTE.
THAT'S A REASON WHY THEY, THEY OMITTED ALMOST HALF OF THAT STATUTE WITH THAT QUESTION.
IT SAYS IF THERE'S A REASON WHY, THERE'S AN IF IN THERE BECAUSE IT'S APPLICABLE AND YOU CAN SAY, WELL, IT'S MAY, WELL THIS MAY, WELL, I MEAN, I MAY BE ARRESTED TOMORROW.
I MEAN, THAT'S, IT'S AMBIGUOUS.
MAY JUST SAYS THERE'S A PROBABILITY OF, WELL, I CAN TELL YOU THERE'S NOT A PROBABILITY OF, UNLESS IF THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET, THAT IF PART HAS TO BE MET BEFORE THERE'S EVEN A PROBABILITY OF THOSE OTHER TWO BEING ARRESTED OR OTHER THREE, IT'S NOT EVEN OPEN FOR IF I'M NOT SPEEDING, I CAN'T GET A SPEEDING TICKET, I HAVE TO BE GUILTY OF SOMETHING.
AND THAT'S WHAT MY ARGUMENT WAS.
AND I DID READ INTO IT UP, IT WAS A TOUGH QUESTION, BUT I WAS LIKE, THE STATUTE IS SAYING MORE JUST THAN THAT.
IT'S, THERE'S ELEMENTS THAT HAVE TO BE MET IN ORDER TO CHARGE THOSE OTHER PEOPLE.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
I, I CAN'T TELL IF MY, CAN YOU HEAR ME? IS MY MIC ON? WE CAN.
UM, FOR THE RECORD, I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS CAPTAIN CHOBANI THAT DID PUT IN, UH, UH, SPEAKING CARD, BUT THEN DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM IS ON QUESTION 51.
IS THAT CORRECT?
I ASKED, COME UP
SO HEATH HAS STATED THAT THE, IF PART NEEDS TO BE CONFIRMED, UH, AND I THINK CAPTAIN MCCAULEY ADDRESSED THAT VERY WELL WITH HIS, UH, FIRST REBUTTAL, UM, IF THE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED IN FURTHERANCE OF THE UNLAWFUL PURPOSE.
WELL, IN THE QUESTION IT SAYS WHILE THIS IS HAPPENING, SO IT'S AT THE SAME TIME, THIS IS NOT ANOTHER DAY, THIS IS NOT ANOTHER OCCASION, THIS IS, WHILE THIS IS HAPPENING, A SECOND FELONY, A SECOND HAS TO INFER THAT THERE WAS A FIRST.
SO IF WE'RE TRYING TO DECIDE IF THE REST OF THIS STATEMENT JOINS, THE FIRST FURTHERANCE IS WHILE THIS IS HAPPENING, AND THIS IS A SECOND FELONY, THAT THAT'S AS SIMPLE AS IT GETS THE ANSWER CHOICES, WHICH AGAIN, MCCULLEY DID A GREAT JOB, ONLY THE PERPETRATOR OF THE SECOND FELONY IS GUILTY.
SO YOU CAN NEVER EVER CHARGE ANYBODY ELSE WITH CONSPIRACY EVER, THAT THAT'S, THAT'S BLACK AND WHITE.
THE, THE WAY THEY WROTE THAT STATEMENT
[00:30:01]
WAS.SO WE COULD, AS A JURY, TAKE THOSE FACTS AND INTERPRET WHETHER THEY ARE GUILTY OR NOT, WHICH IS YOUR CHOICE.
C ALL FOUR MAY BE FOUND GUILTY BASED ON THE, ON THE FACTS THAT ARE PRESENTED IN THE TRIAL.
YOU CAN CHARGE THEM FOR THAT OFFENSE.
AND THAT'S AS CLEAR AS I CAN MAKE IT.
ANY DISCUSSION OR ANYTHING THAT YOU WANNA SAY? MADAM CHAIR? I WOULD JUST JUST LIKE TO CONVEY THE FACT THAT I, I I, I'D LOVE THE EXPERIENCE OF OUR PD AND THE PERSPECTIVE THAT THEY BRING TO THE TABLE.
AND I THINK I LOVE THE FACT THAT THEY BRING THE CLARITY AND THE OBJECTIVITY AS WELL.
UH, GIVEN THE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE BEEN PRESENTED, I MOVE THAT WE, UH, ACCEPT, UH, QUESTION 57 AS WRITTEN AND THE ANSWER AS KEYED AND ANSWER BEING, UH, ANSWER, ANSWER CI SECOND THAT.
SO, UM, WE, UH, HAVE UPHELD THE EXAM QUESTION, UM, NUMBER 51 AS ORIGINALLY SCORED.
SO WE HAVE ALSO AN APPEAL ON QUESTION NUMBER 57 AND, UM, DO WE HAVE ANY P SPEAKERS ON THIS SPECIFIC QUESTION? NUMBER 57, CAPTAIN HILLMAN MADE THE, MADE THE APPEAL, SO HE SHOULD PROBABLY SPEAK.
DID YOU WANT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO? OKAY, COMMISSIONER FOR, FOR PURPOSES OF CLARITY ON THE RECORD, YOU WERE JUST CONSIDERING QUESTION 51 AND MADE THE MOTION WITH RESPECT TO QUESTION 51, JUST 51? THAT'S CORRECT.
HELLO, MY NAME IS HEATH HILLMAN.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR GIVING ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
ALRIGHT, THIS ONE'S QUICKER, SO THIS WON'T TAKE AS LONG.
IT'S EITHER YOU, YOU AGREE WITH ME OR YOU DISAGREE WITH ME.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S ALL THIS ONE IS.
UH, SO THIS IS APPEAL QUESTION NUMBER 57.
IT'S UH, FROM THE TEXAS PENAL CODE 42.01.
THIS APPEAL IS SUBMITTED UNDERNEATH THE SAME CRITERIA AS THE FIRST APPEAL.
THE KEY TO ANSWER IS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE IT ASSUMES STATUTORY ELEMENTS THAT ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE QUESTION, THE QUESTION.
A PATRON IN A BALLROOM MAKES AN OFFENSIVE GESTURE TO ANOTHER PATRON WHO PROVOKES AN ARGUMENT CORRECTION, WHICH PROVOKES AN ARGUMENT.
A PATRON IN A, UH, BARROOM MAKES AN OFFENSIVE GESTURE TO ANOTHER PATRON, WHICH PROVOKES AN ARGUMENT.
THE PATRON WHO MADE THE GESTURE HAS COMMITTED.
AND THE KEY TO ANSWER IS THE DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
SO LET'S LOOK AT THE GOVERNING MATERIAL.
42.01, A PERSON COMMITS AN OFFENSE IF HE INTENTIONALLY OR KNOWINGLY, AND THEN WE'RE GONNA SKIP DOWN TO TWO TO KEEP IT BRIEF BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE OFFENSIVE GESTURE MAKES AN OFFENSIVE GESTURE OR DISPLAY IN A PUBLIC PLACE AND THE GESTURE OR DISPLAY TENDS TO INCITE AN IMMEDIATE BREACH OF THE PIECE.
SO WHAT DOES THIS STATUTE TELL US? IT REQUIRES TWO THINGS, AN OFFENSIVE GESTURE IN A PUBLIC PLACE, AND A TENDENCY TO INCITE AN IMMEDIATE BREACH OF THE PIECE.
SO THE QUESTION PROVIDES US THE FOLLOWING FACTS.
ONLY A PATRON MAKES AN OFFENSIVE GESTURE.
DOESN'T DESCRIBE THE GESTURE, IT JUST SAYS IT'S OFFENSIVE.
AND THERE HAS TO BE A TENDENCY TO INCITE IMMEDIATE BREACH OF THE PEACE.
THAT'S WHAT THE STATUTE'S TELLING US.
THE QUESTION, HOWEVER, JUST PROVIDES THAT A PATRON MAKES AN OFFENSIVE GESTURE AND IT PROVOKES AN ARGUMENT.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY.
WE'RE ARGUING THIS IS NOT A BREACH OF THE PEACE.
IT HAS NEVER BEEN A BREACH OF THE PEACE TO THIS IS WHAT MAKES AMERICA GREAT.
YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE PROFESSIONAL CONVERSATIONS AND ARGUMENT, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU ACCEPT IT THAT WE PRESENT OUR CASE TO YOU AND THEN Y'ALL TELL US IF YOU ACCEPT OUR APPEAL.
THAT'S THE PROFESSIONALISM OF THIS DEPARTMENT AND OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
SO WHAT THE QUESTION DOES NOT STATE THE ARGUMENT, THE ARGUMENT ESCALATED TOWARDS VIOLENCE, JUST AS AN ARGUMENT.
DOESN'T SAY IT ESCALATED TOWARDS VIOLENCE.
THERE WERE THREATS OR PHYSICAL CONFRONTATION.
THE CONDUCT CAUSE ALARM TO OTHERS.
THERE'S PEOPLE THAT ARGUE ALL THE TIME, PEOPLE DRINK IN BARROOM WATCH SPORTS GAMES,
[00:35:01]
AND THEY'RE ARGUING THAT, THAT THAT'S NOT A BREACH OF THE PIECE.AND I MEAN, THE QUESTION CAN HAVE BEEN STRAIGHTFORWARD IF THEY WOULD'VE PUT, THE SITUATION TENDED TOWARDS AN IMMEDIATE BREACH OF THE PIECE.
BUT IT DIDN'T, IT SAID AN ARGUMENT, A SIMPLE ARGUMENT.
STANDING ALONE DOES NOT, UH, CONSTITUTE OR DEMONSTRATE A TENDENCY TO INCITE IMMEDIATE BREACH OF THE PEACE.
THE STATUTE CLEARLY REQUIRES MORE THAN A MERE ARGUMENT OR DISAGREEMENT.
SO IN CLOSING, THE QUESTION STATES ONLY THAT A PATRON MADE AN OFFENSIVE GESTURE.
THEY'RE IN A BAR, AND THIS PROVOKES AN ARGUMENT.
NO ADDITIONAL FACTS WERE PROVIDED, INDICATING THAT THE CONDUCT TENDED TO INCITE AN IMMEDIATE BREACH OF THE PEACE.
THERE WAS NO THREATS, THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL AGGRESSION, THERE WAS NO DISTURBANCE INVOLVING THE PUBLIC AT LARGE UNDER TEXAS LAW.
AN ARGUMENT EVEN WHEN RESULTING THAT IT'S OFFENSIVE OR THAT'S PROVOCATIVE CONDUCT, DOES NOT BY ITSELF SATISFY THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT BECAUSE OF THESE FACTS PRESENTED.
THE ONLY CORRECT ANSWER IS A NO OFFENSE, NO OFFENSE HAD OCCURRED.
THERE'S NO ARRESTABLE OFF OFFENSE.
THE PARTIES JUST NEED TO BE SEPARATED.
THERE'S NO OFFENSE, THERE'S NOTHING THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN DO AT THIS TIME.
OKAY, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? NOT AT THIS TIME.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? I WOULD, CAPTAIN, TRUSTEE WANTS CAPTAIN.
TRUSTEE, ARE YOU WANTING TO COMMENT ON THIS? YES, MA'AM.
AGAIN, CAPTAIN, TRUSTEE, UH, UH, THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME TALK.
UH, I AGREE WITH, UH, CAPTAIN HELMAN.
I, UH, I BELIEVE THAT THE ONLY CORRECT ANSWER ON THIS QUESTION IS A, UH, FOR, UH, MUCH OF THE SAME REASONS THAT HE SAID, UH, I, UH, I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE THE STATUTE AS HE'S ALREADY STATED, BUT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE A COUPLE THINGS EVEN MORE.
UM, THE STATUTE CLEARLY SAYS THAT, UH, FOR THIS TO BE DISORDERLY CONDUCT, IT MUST INCITE AN IMMEDIATE BREACH OF THE PIECE.
UH, THOSE ARE VERY SPECIFIC TERMS IN CITE IS A VERY SPECIFIC TERM.
UH, THE QUESTION AS IT WAS ASKED WAS PROVOKED AN ARGUMENT.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS STATUTE, THE OFFENSIVE DISORDERLY CONDUCT, YOU KNOW, IT HAS TWO IMPORTANT ELEMENTS IN THERE THAT, UH, IT, IT REQUIRES, FIRST THE PERSON MAKES AN OFFENSIVE GESTURE.
AND, UH, SECOND, IT INCITES AN IMMEDIATE BREACH OF THE PIECE.
I HAVE A FEELING THAT MY FRIENDS WILL PROBABLY MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THERE'S NO DEFINITION, UH, FOR, UH, BREACH OF THE PIECE ANYWHERE IN THE PENAL CODE.
AND, AND, AND THEY'RE RIGHT, THERE'S NOT ONE IN THE PENAL CODE, BUT LIKE CAPTAIN STOKES SAID ON THE OTHER QUESTION, WE BRING KNOWLEDGE FROM OTHER SOURCES, UH, INTO, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING THAT WE DO.
SO JUST BECAUSE THERE'S NO DEFINITION INSIDE THE PENAL CODE DOESN'T MEAN THAT, UH, THERE'S NOT ONE THAT DOESN'T EXIST THROUGH CASE LAW OR COURTS OR OTHER, OTHER, UH, REFERENCES.
WE JUST CAN'T TELL YOU ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT FROM THE SOURCE.
UH, BUT I WILL ALSO STATE THERE'S ALSO NO DEFINITION FOR OFFENSIVE GESTURE IN THERE.
SO, UH, YOU KNOW, IT, THAT'S WHY IT'S EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAT WE, UM, WE ANSWER THIS QUESTION SPECIFICALLY AS, UH, THE STATUTE IS WRITTEN.
AND, UM, I I THINK THAT IN SIGHT AND IMMEDIATE BREACH OF THE PIECES FAR FROM PROVOKING AN ARGUMENT, UH, AGAIN, CAPTAIN STOKES SAID EARLIER ABOUT, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT, UH, THE TEST RIDERS ARE ATTEMPTING TO SEE IF WE RECOGNIZE THE STATUTES AS WRITTEN.
AND I'M PARAPHRASING, I I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S EXACTLY HOW HE SAID IT, BUT SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
AND I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY, UH, WHY THIS QUESTION.
THE ONLY CORRECT ANSWER IS A NO OFFENSE FOR THAT REASON.
SO I'LL LEAVE Y'ALL WITH THIS.
UM, AGAIN, I'VE ALREADY SAID, UH, THIS STATUTE REQUIRES AN IMMINENT BREACH OF THE PEACE.
UM, AND AN ARGUMENT IS, IS IT DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE IMMINENCE AND, UH, THE, THE PENAL STATUTES, THE LAWS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE ARE ALL ELEMENT BASED.
MISSING SPECIFIC ELEMENTS MEANS THAT THERE'S NO OFFENSE WHEN FILING CRIMINAL CHARGES.
WE JUST CAN'T MAKE THE OFFENSE, WE CAN'T MAKE THE WORDING FIT WHAT WE WANT IT TO FIT SO WE CAN GET THE ANSWER THAT WE WANT.
UM, SO, UH, JUST TO, JUST TO CLOSE A IS THE ONLY CORRECT ANSWER ON THIS, ON THIS QUESTION IN MY OPINION.
[00:40:04]
ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM OR QUESTION? GOOD MORNING.OKAY, I HAVE A BIT OF A DIFFERENT POSITION ON THIS.
UH, AGAIN, IT'S QUESTION 57 WITH THE KEYED ANSWER OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
UH, MY POSITION IS THAT A IS EQUALLY CORRECT AND I KNOW YOU'RE THINKING, WELL, IF ONE IS WRONG, THE OTHER ONE'S RIGHT, THEY, IT'S EITHER ONE OR THE OTHER DUE TO, DUE TO THE OFFENSE AND WHAT THE STATUTE STATES.
MY OPINION IS THAT THIS IS A POORLY DESIGN QUESTION DUE TO THE USE OF THE TERM.
JUST ARGUMENT WITH NO ADJECTIVE TO DESCRIBE IT.
THE PEN CODE DOES NOT DESCRIBE ARGUMENT OR OFFENSIVE GESTURE.
THE STATUTE USES THE SPECIFIC TERM BREACH OF THE PIECE, WHICH IS, AND THE STATUTE IS WRITTEN, MAKES AN OFFENSIVE GESTURE OR DISPLAY IN A PUBLIC PLACE.
AND THE GESTURE OR DISPLAY TENDS TO INCITE AN IMMEDIATE BREACH OF THE PIECE AS STATED.
ARGUMENT IS NOT DEFINED IN THE PENAL CODE.
ARGUMENT CAN BE AN ACT OF PROCESS OF ARGUING OR REASONING OR DISCUSSING A COHERENT SERIES OF REASONS, STATEMENTS, OR FACTS INTENDED TO SUPPORT OR ESTABLISH YOUR POINT OF VIEW.
AND IT COULD ALSO BE AN ANGRY COEL OR A DISAGREEMENT, BUT IT ALL CAN BE A REASON FOR OR AGAINST A MATTER UNDER THE DISCUSSION.
AN EXPRESSION INTENDED TO CONVINCE OR PERSUADE.
ONLY ONE OF THESE OFFERS A, UH, VIEW OF ARGUMENT AS A BREACH OF THE PEACE.
UH, SINCE THERE IS NO ADJECTIVE TO HELP DESCRIBE ARGUMENTS SUCH AS HEATED, LOUD, OR ANGRY, WHICH BETTER REFLECT, REFLECT ON THE TERM OF BREACH OF THE PEACE.
ARGUMENTS IN PUBLIC PLACES ARE EXTREMELY COMMON IN OUR SOCIETY, INCLUDING OPEN AND FORMAL DEBATES ON CAMPUSES, STREET CORNERS, AND PUBLIC SQUARE.
AND CERTAINLY IN ALL OF THESE CONTEXTS, IN A BARROOM, A BARROOM IS A VERY COMMONPLACE FOR ARGUMENTS OVER SPORTS, POLITICS, RELATIONSHIPS, ET CETERA.
AND THAT EVEN MAY AN OFFENSIVE GESTURE, WHICH IS SUBJECTIVE IN THE EYE OF THE PERSON WHO IS OFFENDED, BE PART OF THAT.
THIS DOES NOT DESCRIBE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE DUE TO THE OVERALL AMBIGUITY OF THIS POORLY CONSTRUCTED QUESTION WITH A NOUN NOT DESCRIBED OR DEFINED IN THE PENAL CODE, NO ADJECTIVE DESCRIBING THE NOUN THAT MORE ACCURATELY REFLECTS THAT IT IS A BREACH OF THE PIECE.
AND THIS IS A APPLIED KNOWLEDGE SCENARIO.
IN REALITY, OFFICERS INVESTIGATING THIS SITUATION WOULD NOT LIKELY CHARGE ANYONE WITH DISORDERLY CONDUCT BASED UPON THE INFORMATION THAT IS LIMITED IN THE QUESTION ITSELF.
IT CREATES, IT'S TOO AMBIGUOUS.
YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION TO EITHER DETERMINE THAT NO OFFENSE OR COMMITTED OR A BREACH OF A COMMITTEE OF, OF A PIECE WAS COMMITTED.
THE SUBJECTIVENESS OF THIS QUESTION DOES NOT HAVE THE SPECIFICS REQUIRED IN A CIVIL SERVICE PROMOTIONAL EXAM.
MY ARGUMENT, PUN INTENDED, IS FOR THIS, FOR, FOR CREDIT FOR THE ANSWER, NO OFFENSE IS EQUALLY CORRECT DUE TO THE LACK OF SPECIFICS IN THE QUESTION ITSELF AS THE KEY ANSWER.
JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, HOW DID YOU ANSWER THIS QUESTION? WHAT WAS YOUR ANSWER? MY ANSWER WAS NO OFFENSE COMMITTED DUE TO THE LACK OF INFORMATION AND SPECIFICS IN THE QUESTION.
AND LIKE STATED EARLIER, UH, THIS IS A CIVIL SERVICE PROMOTIONAL EXAM.
IT REQUIRES SPECIFICS IN THE QUESTION, THE TERM ARGUMENT DOES NOT MATCH BREACH OF THE PIECE, WHICH IS WHAT IS STATED IN THE PENAL CODE.
DO WE HAVE ANOTHER SPEAKER? YES, MA'AM.
THANK YOU ALL FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.
ONCE AGAIN, MY NAME IS PATRICK MCCAULEY.
I'M A CAPTAIN WITH THE GARLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT.
UM, I'LL BE TALKING AGAIN ABOUT QUESTION 57, UH, STATING THAT THE KEY TO ANSWER DISORDERLY CONDUCT IS CORRECT.
UH, SEVERAL THINGS CAME UP, SO I APOLOGIZE IF I HAVE TO MOVE AROUND THE QUESTION A BIT.
BUT I DO WANNA ESTABLISH A COUPLE THINGS ABOUT BOTH THE QUESTION AND THE LAW THAT'S UNDER, UH, REVIEW.
UH, WE OPEN UP WITH, WE HAVE A PATRON AT A BALLROOM THAT CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THIS LOCATION AS A PUBLIC PLACE, WHICH IS THE FIRST PART OF THE STATUTE THAT WE GIVE.
THE SECOND THING WE HAVE IS THAT THAT PERSON MAKES AN OFFENSIVE GESTURE TO ANOTHER PERSON.
HE DOESN'T MAKE AN OFFENSIVE GESTURE INTO THE AIR, HE MAKES IT TO A SPECIFIC PERSON THAT CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THE SECOND POINT OF WHAT DISORDERLY CONDUCT IS.
UH, THERE'S BEEN A COUPLE FOLKS TALKING ABOUT OFFENSIVE GESTURE IS VAGUE OR UNCERTAIN, HOWEVER IT IS PRESENTED TO US AS A FACT.
IT DOESN'T DESCRIBE THE GESTURE, IT TELLS US THE GESTURE BY ITS VERY DEFINITION IS OFFENSIVE.
IT IS DESCRIBED AS AN OFFENSIVE GESTURE, THEREFORE IS AN OFFENSIVE GESTURE AS A FACT, WHICH OF THE SECOND PART OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT, THE NEXT PART IS THE OUTCOME OF THAT.
AND IT IS CORRECT THAT MAKING OFFENSIVE GESTURE BY ITSELF IS NOT DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
MAKING AN OFFENSIVE GESTURE IN PUBLIC IS NOT A DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
HOWEVER, THE NEXT PART IS WHERE THIS ALL CHANGES.
[00:45:01]
THE OFFENSIVE GESTURE, WHICH IS A FACT, IMMEDIATELY PROVOKES AN ARGUMENT.THE KEY WORD HERE IS PROVOKED.
IT'S NOT ENGAGED IN, IT'S NOT INTRODUCED, IT'S NOT INVITED INTO, I THINK CAPTAIN HELLMAN MENTIONED EARLIER THAT WE ARGUE AND WE DISCUSS, AND THIS IS AN ARGUMENT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE.
HOWEVER, FOR ME TO COME UP HERE, I HAD TO FILL OUT A CARD TO COME UP AND SPEAK IN FRONT OF YOU GUYS.
THIS BUILDING ISN'T OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AT ALL TIMES.
SO THIS IS WHEN WE USE WORDS LIKE PROVOKE.
IT IS NOT SOMETHING THE OTHER PATRON WANTED TO ENGAGE IN.
THIS WAS NOT A DEBATE AT A, AT A LIBRARY.
THIS WASN'T EVEN A PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE.
THIS IS A BALLROOM WHERE SOMEONE MAKES A GESTURE AND IT PROVOKES.
AND THE WORD PROVOKE IS REALLY UNIQUE FOR THIS.
IT IS GOING TO CAUSE A REACTION FROM SOMEONE ELSE.
IT IS DESIGNED TO PROVOKE AN ACTIVITY.
I DON'T WANT YOU TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS.
YOU MAY NOT HAVE WANTED TO BE IN IT AS WELL.
SO THE WORD PROVOKE CLEARLY GIVES ME WHAT I WANTED TO HAVE, WHICH IS GOING TO CHANGE SOMETHING.
NOW, IT PROVOKES AN ARGUMENT AND THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MADE, NO PUN INTENDED BEFORE, THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT AN ARGUMENT ACTUALLY IS.
AND IT MAY NOT BE THAT OFFENSIVE.
UH, CAPTAIN HELLMAN MENTIONED THAT IT DIDN'T ACTUALLY GO TOWARD VIOLENCE.
IT DIDN'T LEAD TO, UH, A THREAT.
IT DIDN'T LEAD TO SOME SORT OF CONFRONTATION.
HOWEVER, THOSE THINGS ARE NOT PART OF THIS OFFENSE.
ALL WE KNOW IS THAT AFTER THE, UH, THE PROVOKING ARGUMENT, THE OFFENSE WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS, DOES THE ACTIVITY, THE OFFENSIVE CONDUCT, DOES IT INCITE AN IMMEDIATE BREACH OF THE PIECE? SO THE KEY QUESTION THERE IS WHAT'S THE BREACH OF THE PIECE? AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT BEING UNSPECIFIC AND WHY THAT'S CHALLENGING.
THE PENAL CODE ONLY MENTIONS IT TWICE IN THIS OFFENSE, BOTH FOR LANGUAGE AND FOR SPEECH OR FOR GESTURES.
THE REASON FOR HAVING THAT LACK OF SPECIFICITY IS BREACH OF THE PIECE IS SOMETHING FOR THE COURSE TO DECIDE.
IS THIS CONDUCT A BREACH OF THE PIECE? IS IT, IS IT NOT? THERE ARE CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE MAYBE IT DOESN'T BREACH THE PIECE, SO IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT.
BUT IN THIS CASE, WE'VE GOT A PROVOKING OF AN ARGUMENT, SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE DID NOT WANNA BE INVOLVED IN.
UM, HOWEVER, I DO WANNA CLEAR UP SOME OTHER ONES.
IF IT WAS A THREAT, THAT'S ACTUALLY A DIFFERENT OFFENSE.
IT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT STATUTE IN THE LAW.
SO IT CAN'T BE THAT IF IT INCITES A MUCH LARGER THING, SAY A RIOT, ALSO A DIFFERENT CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
AND THE REALITY IS DISORDERLY CONDUCT OF CLASS C MISDEMEANOR IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, IT'S A 500 FINE.
NOW, OFFICERS MAY NOT ARREST PEOPLE, BUT THESE PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO PRISON.
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS YOU'RE DISRUPTING SOMETHING.
AND SO WE GET TO THE BREACH OF THE PIECE, WHICH IS ILL-DEFINED ON PURPOSE.
SO MY SORT OF PRESENTATION TO YOU GUYS IS WHEN WE PROVOKE AN ARGUMENT, WE ARE CHANGING THAT DYNAMIC OF THIS BALLROOM.
THEY WEREN'T ALREADY ARGUING, HE DIDN'T JOIN IN THE ARGUMENT, HE PROVOKED IT.
AND I WOULD SAY THAT THAT HAD LACK OF HAVING AN ARGUMENT.
THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF PEACE.
THESE ARE PEOPLE IN THE BALLROOM DOING WHAT THEY WANNA DO, AND THIS PERSON COMES IN, MAKES AN OFFENSIVE GESTURE AND CHANGES THE DYNAMIC OF THAT ROOM.
THERE'S NO OTHER WAY THAT'S MORE BREACHING OF THE PIECE THAN THAT POSSIBLY COULD BE.
AND IT MAY BE DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT CONTEXT.
IT MAY EVEN BE SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T FILE CHARGES ON.
HOWEVER, THE QUESTION WE HAVE AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE QUESTION BEFORE US WE TAKE THE TEST IS WHAT IS THE OFFENSE THAT WAS COMMITTED? THAT IS THE QUESTION, NOT WHAT IS THE STANDARD OF PROOF.
IT'S NOT BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT OR PROBABLE CAUSE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
WE ARE GOING DOWN TO THE PERSON THAT MADE THE GESTURE IS COMMITTED.
WHAT OFFENSE, DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY GET ARRESTED.
DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY GET CHARGED.
THE QUESTION IS WHAT HAVE THEY COMMITTED? SO I'M GONNA GO DOWN THESE REALLY QUICKLY.
UH, A THE NO OFFENSE CLUE IS INCORRECT.
ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE STATUTE HAVE BEEN MET.
OUR TEST IN FRONT OF US HERE HAS NOT ROPE RECOGNITION OR MEMORIZATION OF THE PENAL CODE IS CAN WE TAKE WHAT WE'VE LEARNED IN THE PENAL CODE AND APPLY TO A SCENARIO? AND THEY GAVE US ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE SCENARIO.
WHEN YOU PROVOKE AN ARGUMENT, YOU ARE CHANGING THAT DYNAMICS OF THAT ROOM THAT THEY WERE IN.
THERE'S NO WAY THAT DOESN'T REACH THE STANDARD OF BREACH OF THE PIECE.
THE OTHER TWO, UH, DISORDERLY CONDUCT ANSWER B, THE CORRECT ANSWER.
IT CLEARLY MATCHES THE LANGUAGE FROM THE PENAL CODE.
AND OB SEEN DISPLAY CLEARLY IS WRONG.
IT ACTUALLY REFERENCES A TOTALLY SEPARATE ISSUE THERE.
THE LAST PART, AND I DO WANNA LEAVE YOU WITH THIS, THE LAW ALSO DOESN'T REQUIRE THE PIECE TO ACTUALLY BE BREACHED.
IT ONLY HAS TWO TENDS TO INSIDE A BREACH OF THE PIECE.
SO THE PIECE COULD BE MAINTAINED, BUT IF YOUR ACTIVITY TENDS TO INSIDE A BREACH OF THE PIECE, IT'S EVEN LOWER THAN THAT.
SO TO COME IN HERE RIGHT NOW AND START SCREAMING AND BREAKING THE PIECE HERE COULD MEET THAT STANDARD.
IT MAY NOT MEET THAT STANDARD, BUT THOSE ARE ALSO THINGS FOR THE LAW TO APPLY FOR JUDGES AND JURIES TO DECIDE IN A COURT OF LAW.
SO WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO HAVE A BREACH OF THE PIECE, WE JUST HAVE TO TEND TO INCITE IT.
ANY COMMENTS OR ANY DISCUSSION ON THESE ITEMS OR ON THIS QUESTION? NUMBER 57? OH, IS THERE, ARE THERE MORE SPEAKERS? OH, OKAY.
AND, AND AGAIN, CAPTAIN MCCULLEY DID A GREAT JOB OF, OF BREAKING THIS QUESTION DOWN.
UH, THERE, THERE'S A LOT OF FACTS WITHIN THE QUESTION THAT HELP US INTERPRET THE CORRECT ANSWER.
A PATRON IN A BARROOM MAKES AN OFFENSIVE GESTURE.
THEY DON'T TELL US WHAT THE GESTURE IS, WHICH IS GREAT FOR US BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE TO INTERPRET THE MIDDLE FINGER OR THIS, OR, OR ANY KIND OF GESTURE.
IT SAYS OFFENSIVE GESTURE, WHICH IS THE EXACT WORDING IN THE PENAL CODE.
IF YOU GO FURTHER DOWN THE QUESTION THERE, THERE'S A SPECIFIC
[00:50:01]
WORD THAT I FOUND INTERESTING THAT HELLMAN LEFT OUT, OR I'M SORRY, HELLMAN HIGHLIGHTED, BUT THEN TRUSTEE LEFT OUT.IT'S THE SAME WORD, BUT THEY, THEY HAVE THE SAME ARGUMENT, BUT IT'S THE SAME WORD AND IT'S TENDS TO INCITE.
WHAT DOES TENS MEAN? DOES THAT MEAN EVERY SINGLE TIME? MORE OFTEN THAN NOT? I THINK MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, THAT'S WHAT 10 TENS MEANS TO ME.
SO TENDS TO INCITE AN IMMEDIATE BREACH OF THE PEACE.
ALRIGHT, SO LET'S GO BACK TO THE QUESTION.
THIS OFFENSIVE GESTURE TO ANOTHER PERSON PROVOKES AN ARGUMENT.
YEAH, TENS IT, IT JUST HAPPENED.
IT, THEY, IT, IT JUST HAPPENED.
UH, SO THEN YOU HAVE ALL THE ELEMENTS THAT ARE MADE.
AND LET'S LOOK AT THE ANSWER CHOICES, NO OFFENSE.
AGAIN, WE'RE GONNA GO BACK TO THE FIRST QUESTION THAT WE HAD.
SO WE HAVE THIS OFFENSIVE GESTURE, AND IF YOU'RE TELLING ME, NO OFFENSE, THAT MEANS WE CANNOT DO ANYTHING AS POLICE OFFICERS, WE CANNOT ACT.
IN FACT, WE CAN BE HELD CIVILLY LIABLE.
WE CAN INFRINGE ON SOMEBODY'S RIGHTS IF WE DO ANYTHING BECAUSE YOUR CHOICE IS SAYING, NO OFFENSE.
SO, ALL RIGHT, LET'S, LET'S GIVE YOU A SCENARIO HERE, RIGHT? OFFENSIVE GESTURE.
LET'S SAY YOUR DAUGHTER GETS UP, RIGHT? YOUNG DAUGHTER GETS UP, THIS MAN MAKES SOME KIND OF SEXUAL GESTURE.
YOU GET INTO AN ARGUMENT WITH THAT MAN.
YOU CALL THE POLICE OUT, YOU'RE TELLING ME, NO OFFENSE, THE POLICE ARE GONNA COME OUT THERE AND SAY, I'M SORRY SIR.
THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WE CAN DO FOR THIS.
HOW MANY TIMES, HOW MANY TIMES DO THEY ARREST SOMEBODY FOR A VERY LOW OFFENSE, JUST TO GET THEM IN INTERROGATION FOR A MURDER? THIS IS WHAT THIS IS.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A FALL OUT, A FULL OUT BALLROOM ASSAULT AND FIGHT DRAG OUT IN THE STREET SHOOTING.
IT SAYS WHAT STARTED IT, WHAT OFFENSE DO WE HAVE? AND THE CHOICES ARE DO YOU HAVE AN OFFENSE OR DO YOU NOT HAVE AN OFFENSE? AND NO OFFENSE IS EXTREMELY INCORRECT.
YOU ARE TELLING THE POLICE, DO NOT GO IN THERE, DO NOT DO ANYTHING BECAUSE WE WILL SUE YOU.
AND AGAIN, AS MCCULLEY BROUGHT UP, IT IS A CLASS C.
IT IS A, IT IS VERY LOW, BUT THERE'S A REASON THEY PUT IT IN THE BOOK BECAUSE SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO USE THAT.
SOMETIMES YOU WANT TO ARREST SOMEBODY FOR THAT SMALL OFFENSE BEFORE IT ESCALATES TO SOMETHING SERIOUS LIKE A RIOT OR A SHOOTING IN A BAR.
SO I'M ASKING YOU, IS IT AN OFFENSE? AND I THINK YOU KNOW THE ANSWER.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? NO.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? I WOULD JUST LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY COMMISSIONERS, CERTAINLY.
UH, OH, AM I STILL HERE? YEAH, THERE HE IS.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF ELABORATION WITH THIS QUESTION.
CAN YOU RESTATE YOUR NAME? JUST YES.
THERE'S A LOT OF ELABORATION WITH THIS QUESTION.
THIS QUESTION IS STRAIGHTFORWARD.
A PATRON IN A BARROOM MAKES AN OFFENSIVE GESTURE TO ANOTHER PATRON, WHICH PROVOKES AN ARGUMENT.
IF THEY WANTED US TO USE DISORDERLY CONDUCT, THEY SHOULD HAVE USED A BETTER WORD THAN ARGUMENT.
THEY SHOULD HAVE SAID A FIGHT, A DISTURBANCE, ANYTHING BUT JUST A MERE ARGUMENT ALONE DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
IT DOESN'T ARISE TO THE LEVEL OF A SHOOTING, OR, I MEAN, OR A, YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION'S SIMPLE.
YOU HAVE A SIMPLE ARGUMENT BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE.
WHAT OFFENSE DO YOU HAVE? NOTHING.
PEOPLE HAVE A DISAGREEING OPINIONS ALL THE TIME.
THAT IN OF ITSELF IS NOT AN OFFENSE.
THERE HAS TO BE A BREACH OF THE PIECE.
THERE HAS TO BE AN ACT IN ORDER TO EVEN ISSUE A CITATION OR TO MAKE AN ARREST.
'CAUSE A CLASS C CITATION, YOU CAN MAKE AN ARREST AND YOU WOULD NOT ARREST SOMEBODY IN THIS SITUATION AS THE QUESTION IS STATED.
ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS? QUESTION? UH, ACTUALLY CAN FOR HIM, UH, FOR, FOR ANY ONE OF OUR OFFICERS GENERAL.
IF WE COULD JUST HAVE, UH, CAPTAIN, TRUSTEE, IF YOU COULD, SIR, ON THE, UH, THE ORDINANCE ITSELF.
[00:55:01]
THAT IN LAYMAN'S TERM AGAIN, PLEASE, SIR.UH, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THE, THE ORDINANCE THERE.
THE ORDINANCE OF 42 0 42 0.01.
I'M SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT WHAT YOU WANT ME TO EXPLAIN? YES, SIR.
CAN YOU, CAN YOU JUST SPEAK TO THAT IN LAYMAN'S TERMS ON ITEM TWO? UH, UNDER ITEM TWO? UH, I, I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.
WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE GIST OF IS THIS DISORDERLY CONDUCT, UH, MAKES AN OFFENSIVE GESTURE.
I THINK WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT.
UH, BUT IS AN ARGUMENT, UM, DOES THAT REACH THE LEVEL OF INCITING AN IMMEDIATE BREACH OF THE PEACE NOW? UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THEY SAID THAT, UH, I KIND OF AVOIDED THE, THE TENSE TO PART, BUT I DON'T THINK I AVOIDED THE IMMEDIATE BREACH OF THE PIECE.
UH, PART OF THAT, I THINK I DEFINITELY, UH, HIGHLIGHTED THAT, UH, UH, IMMEDIATE MEANS, LIKE RIGHT NOW IT'S IMMINENT.
AND, UH, UH, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE DEFINITELY, UH, TAKING A LOT OF LATITUDE WITH THE FACT THAT EACH OF THE PIECE IS NOT DEFINED WITHIN THE PENAL CODE.
BUT AGAIN, THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT'S NOT DEFINED AT ALL, AND THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT DEFINITION HAS SAID.
UM, I THINK CAPTAIN MCCOLEY SAID THAT, UH, THAT'S UP FOR THE COURTS TO DECIDE.
I WISH I COULD TELL YOU THAT THE COURTS HAVE DECIDED.
UM, AND, UH, AGAIN, I I, I STAND BY MY CLOSING POINT THAT, UH, PENAL STATUTES ARE VERY SPECIFIC, BASED, UH, ON THE ELEMENTS, AND WE HAVE TO MEET EVERY ELEMENT.
UH, WE DON'T JUST GET TO MAKE THE STATUTE FIT WHAT WE WANT.
UM, YOU KNOW, UH, I, I KNOW THAT THEY MINIMIZED THAT AND SAID THAT THIS IS JUST A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR AND, UH, YOU KNOW, A A $500 FINE, WELL, YOU CAN ACTUALLY BE ARRESTED FOR CLASS C MISDEMEANORS.
I DON'T WANNA BE UNLAWFULLY ARRESTED FOR ANYTHING.
I DON'T CARE HOW MINOR THE OFFENSES.
UM, AND, AND YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY REFERENCED OTHER OFFENSES THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN, UM, UH, THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT DOES BREACH OF THE PEACE INCLUDE LIKE, UH, ASSAULTS OR THREATS OR VIOLENCE? UH, YOU KNOW, MY FRIENDS MENTIONED, UH, YEAH, WE HAVE ASSAULT BY A THREAT AND MENTIONED A COUPLE OTHER OFFENSES.
WELL, ALL THOSE OFFENSES ALSO HAVE VERY SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF THOSE THAT WOULD'VE HAD TO HAVE BEEN MET AS WELL.
UM, SO I HOPE I ANSWERED, UH, I'M NOT SURE IF I UNDERSTOOD EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE ASKING, BUT, UH, I HOPE I ANSWERED OR, YOU KNOW, CLARIFIED WHAT, WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR.
MIR SHABANI IN THEIR, IN THEIR SECOND, SECOND ARGUMENT, BOTH HELMAN AND TRUSTEE, UH, SAID, HEY, I WOULDN'T WANNA BE ARRESTED FOR THAT.
NOWHERE IN THAT QUESTION DOES IT SAY, WHAT ARE YOU ARRESTING THIS GUY FOR? IT SAYS, THE PATRON WHO MADE THE GESTURE HAS COMMITTED WHAT OFFENSE.
THERE ARE PLENTY OF OFFENSES WE DON'T ARREST FOR.
I MEAN, I COULD, I COULD GET OUT HERE ON MAIN STREET AND PULL PEOPLE OVER ALL DAY FOR STOPPING OVER THE STOP LINE, RIGHT? TURNING LANES WITHOUT THE TURN SIGNAL.
IT SAYS, WHAT OFFENSE DO YOU HAVE THAT YOU COULD ARREST FOR? AND THAT'S, THAT'S MY, THAT WAS MY POINT ON THE FIRST TIME.
WHAT DO WE HAVE THAT IF WE NEEDED IT IN A PINCH? WHAT IS THIS OFFENSE? AND YOU HAVE AN OFFENSE TO SAY YOU ABSOLUTELY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING YOU COULD POSSIBLY DO.
DON'T VIOLATE ANYBODY'S RIGHTS IS INCORRECT.
DOESN'T SAY YOU HAVE TO ARREST THEM FOR IT.
IT SAYS, IF YOU NEEDED TO, LIKE THIS SCENARIO THAT I GAVE YOU, YOU HAVE AN OFFENSE AND IT MEETS ALL THE ELEMENTS AND YOU CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR ARRESTING THAT PERSON WITH THE OFFENSE AND THE ELEMENTS THAT YOU HAVE.
OFFICER ANI, COULD YOU? YES, SIR.
I WAS JUST GONNA ASK YES, SIR, ON THE ANSWERS REAL QUICKLY.
UH, CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN WHY THE OTHER, THE OTHER ANSWERS LIKE I ANSWER CI THINK IS OBVIOUS.
SO, UM, AND MY WIFE HAD THE SAME QUESTION.
SHE'S LIKE, WHY IS IT NOT OBSCENE DISPLAY? OBSCENE DISPLAY FALLS UNDER SEXUAL OFFENSES.
IT MAKES SENSE IN YOUR HEAD IF YOU DON'T KNOW LAW, LIKE, HEY, IT'S AN OBS OBSCENE DISPLAY.
WHY IS IT NOT THAT, UH, OBSCENE DISPLAY FALLS UNDER SEXUAL OFFENSES? UM, SO IT'S A DIFFERENT CHAPTER ALTOGETHER.
UM, BUT YEAH, I COULD SEE WHERE THAT WOULD BE CONFUSING.
UH, AND THEN DISORDERLY CONDUCT, AGAIN, SOMEBODY BROUGHT UP, THEY, THEY WANT US TO PULL THIS INFORMATION FROM OUR READINGS.
AND UNDER DISORDERLY CONDUCT, THERE'S 11, 11 DIFFERENT THINGS THAT FALL UNDER DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT US TO REMEMBER.
CAN YOU REMEMBER THE 11 AND THIS ONE'S NUMBER TWO ON THE LIST.
[01:00:01]
OFFENSIVE GESTURE THAT TENDS TO INCITE OF EACH OF THE PIECE.I WOULD AGREE PARTIALLY WITH, UH, CAPTAIN CHOBANI.
UH, YOU, THE QUESTION ASKS WHAT OFFENSE HAS BEEN COM COMMITTED? BUT THE KEY TO THIS IS ALSO AN ANSWER PROVIDED.
AND ONE OF THE ANSWERS PROVIDED IS NO OFFENSE.
AND AGAIN, DUE TO THE AMBIGUITY OF THE QUESTION, IN ITS POOR STRUCTURE, IT CREATES THE POSSIBILITY THAT NO OFFENSE HAS OCCURRED BECAUSE THEY ONLY USE THE TERM ARGUMENT.
THERE IS NO ADJECTIVE DESCRIBES ARGUMENT.
AND LIKE WE'VE STATED, AND MULTIPLE TIMES, BARROOM ARE PLACED FOR ARGUMENTS OVER A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
EVEN THOUGH AN OFFENSIVE GESTURE PROCEEDED THIS, IT JUST LED TO AN ARGUMENT.
WELL, WHAT IS ARGUMENT? IT'S VERY SUBJECTIVE, IT'S VERY AMBIGUOUS.
THERE'S NOTHING TO DESCRIBE ARGUMENT.
AND SO I WOULD GO BACK TO THE POORLY DIVINE QUESTION, WHICH IT COULD BE, BUT WE LACK SPECIFICS IN THE QUESTION ITSELF AND IN THE ANSWERS PROVIDED, THAT WOULD GIVE US A REASONABLE, THAT'S THE ANSWER.
SO IN MY OPINION, AS I'VE STATED EARLIER, IS THAT YOU SHOULD GIVE CREDIT FOR NO OFFENSE DUE TO THE POORLY DESIGNED QUESTION AND THE AMBIGUITY CREATED BY JUST USING THE TERM ARGUMENT, WHICH IS WIDELY USED IN OUR SOCIETY.
UH, BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE ON, ON ANSWER A W GIVEN THIS SCENARIO, WOULD YOU SAY THERE IS AN OFFENSE GIVEN WHAT YOU, WHAT WHAT THIS
SO IF IT STATED A HEATED ARGUMENT OR A LOUD ARGUMENT OR AN ANGRY ARGUMENT, OR THEY USED A DIFFERENT TERM INSTEAD OF ARGUMENT THAT LED TO VIOLENCE OR A THREAT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN THAT IS CLEARLY THE KEY ANSWER OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
BUT DUE TO THE AMBIGUITY OF THE QUESTION ITSELF AND THE USE OF THE TERM ARGUMENT WITH NOTHING TO DESCRIBE ARGUMENT LEAVES OPEN THE POSSIBILITY THAT THERE IS NO OFFENSE.
BUT I, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING, JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR, BUT YOU WOULD AGREE, GIVEN THE INFORMATION THAT THERE IS SOME TYPE OF OFFENSE, WOULD YOU NOT? WE DON'T KNOW.
WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF INFORMATION IN THE QUESTION ITSELF, DUE TO THE LACK OF INFORMATION IN THE QUESTION ITSELF, AND THE ANSWER THAT IS GIVEN NO OFFENSE, IT CREATES THAT NO OFFENSE MAY HAVE OCCURRED.
AND IT ALSO CREATES THAT DISORDERLY CONDUCT MAY HAVE OCCURRED AS WELL, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T GIVE A DESCRIPTION, FURTHER DESCRIPTION OF THE INCIDENT ITSELF.
AND THIS IS SCENARIO BASED KNOWLEDGE DRIVEN QUESTION WITH LACK OF INFORMATION.
PATRICK MCCAULEY, AFTER THE GARLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, UH, I JUST KIND OF WANNA COME BACK TO A COUPLE THINGS.
WE'VE KIND OF GONE FARFIELD AND, UH, JUST BRING A COUPLE THINGS HOME.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT KEEPS BEING BROUGHT UP IS THE WORD ARGUMENT DOES NOT EQUAL BREACH OF THE PIECE AND THE COUNTER COMPLAINT, THAT BREACH OF THE PIECE AS DEFINED IN THE PENAL CODE, THE OTHER INFORMATION IS NOT DEFINED.
AND IT SEEMS ODD TO ME THAT WE'RE GONNA HANG OUR HATS ON BREACH OF THE PIECE NOT BEING DEFINED WHEN THE LEGISLATURE CLEARLY COULD HAVE DEFINED IT AND CHOSE TO YOU.
WE USE THE WORD BREACH OF THE PIECE.
IN THIS CASE, IT'S BEEN DESCRIBED AS BEING UNCLEAR OR, OR UNCERTAIN WHAT IT MEANS.
THE ONLY WAY TO REALLY SATISFY THAT WOULD REPLACE THE WORD ARGUMENT WITH THINGS THAT ARE EITHER OTHER CRIMINAL OFFENSES OR LITERALLY THE PHRASE BREACH OF THE PEACE.
AND MY CHALLENGE WOULD BE, WHAT ELSE CAN I PUT IN THERE? IF IT'S A FIGHT, IF IT'S A FIST FIGHT WHERE PEOPLE RING INJURED, THAT'S A DIFFERENT CRIME.
SO THOSE CAN'T GO IN THAT ROOM.
SO WE'RE STILL STAYING AROUND.
THE OFFENSE WE HAVE IN PLAY HERE IS EITHER NO OFFENSE WHATSOEVER OR DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
AND THE, THE ELEMENT WE HAD IN FRONT OF US IS AN ARGUMENT THAT'S PART OF THE ISSUE HERE, THAT THESE PEOPLE, FOLKS WEREN'T ALREADY IN ARGUMENT.
AND MY ORIGINAL POINT, JUST TO REITERATE, IS THAT WE ARE CHANGING DY THE DYNAMICS.
WHEN WE PROVOKE AN ARGUMENT, WE ARE CHANGING THE DYNAMICS.
ARE THERE CLEARLY SOMETHING, CALL IT PEACE, CALL IT TRANQUILITY, WHATEVER YOU WISH HAS BEEN BROKEN, IT HAS BEEN CHANGED.
UM, DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE STABBING PEOPLE OR DOING ALL KINDS OTHER THINGS.
IT DOESN'T NEED TO RISE TO THAT OCCASION.
ALSO, OUR QUESTION IN OUR, THE TASK FOR ALL OF US ON THESE IS NOT ROTE MEMORIZATION OF THE PENAL CODE TO WHERE YOU CAN SIMPLY GIVE ME ALL THE ELEMENTS BACK AND GO, HEY, WHICH ONE IS THAT? THAT'S A DIFFERENT PHRASED QUESTION.
THIS IS A SCENARIO GIVING US CERTAIN FACTS AS DESCRIBED, GOING DOWN THE LINE FROM THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE.
IT IS GOING TO GIVE US ALL THE ELEMENTS OF PEOPLE IN A PUBLIC PLACE DOING CERTAIN BEHAVIORS.
IT'S INTENTIONALLY, KNOWINGLY, HAS ALL THOSE PIECES INTO IT.
THEY COMMIT AN OFFENSIVE GESTURE THAT WE WILL DEFINE INSTEAD OF TRYING TO TELL
[01:05:01]
YOU WHAT IT WAS.'CAUSE THAT WOULD BE SUBJECTIVE.
YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE OFFENSIVE TO ONE PERSON, MIGHT NOT BE ANYBODY ELSE.
WE'RE GONNA SKIP IT AND GIVE YOU OFFENSIVE GESTURE.
SO WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT.
THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES THIS A LITTLE BIT TRICKY, AND YOU'VE SEEN US KIND OF WORKING AROUND IT, IS, IS AN ARGUMENT, A BREACH OF THE PEACE.
AND THE ONE THING ABOUT THAT ONE THAT I WANNA REMIND YOU IS THE LAW ACTUALLY DOESN'T HAVE TO TO BE A BREACH OF THE PEACE ANYWAY.
IT TENDS TO INCITE A BREACH OF THE PEACE.
SO IF THIS SPIRALS OUT OF CONTROL, THIS WOULD BE THE CAUSATIVE FACTOR.
UM, THE WORD PROVOKE TYPICALLY INVOLVES SOMEONE DOING BEHAVIORS THEY, THEY DON'T NORMALLY WANT TO USE.
ALSO, WE SEE PEOPLE PROVOKED INTO OTHER BEHAVIORS, AND YOU CAN SEE PROVOCATION BEING A DEFENSE TO OTHER BEHAVIORS.
SO PROVOCATION TO ME IS THE KEY WORD THEY'RE USING HERE.
WE'RE BRINGING PEOPLE IN SOMETHING THEY WEREN'T CONSENSUALLY INVOLVED IN.
UH, SEVERAL FOLKS HAVE SAID, HEY, WE'RE ALL SORT OF ARGUING TODAY, YET YOU GUYS CAN ENGAGE AS YOU SEE FIT.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE IN THE ROOM.
THERE'S SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING AT ALL.
AND SO PROVOKED MEANS I'M PULLING YOU INTO IT AGAINST YOUR WILL.
YOU WEREN'T ARGUING BEFORE, BUT NOW YOU ARE.
I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT COULD BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A PIECE THAT HAS NOW BEEN BREACHED.
SO LET'S SAY ADAM, I'M AT A BAR AND THERE'S AN ARGUMENT ABOUT WHO'S GONNA WIN THE SUPER BOWL MM-HMM
AND IT'S STRICTLY A DEBATE OR ARGUMENT ABOUT WHO'S GONNA WIN, RIGHT? BUT THERE WAS NO OFFENSIVE GESTURE.
IT WAS JUST AN ARGUMENT IN AND OF ITSELF.
SO I THINK THAT WHEN YOU ADD THE ELEMENT OF THE GESTURE, YOU KNOW, IT KIND OF ADDS A WHOLE OTHER LEVEL OF, YOU KNOW, SO ANYWAY, I JUST, AND THE GESTURE WAS DIRECTED AT ANOTHER PATRON DIRECTLY.
SO COULD, COULD I COMMENT BRIEFLY ON THAT? SURE.
SO AS YOU'RE KIND OF DISCOVERING THOSE THINGS GO TOGETHER SIMPLY SAYING, I DON'T LIKE YOUR FAVORITE SPORTS TEAM.
IT MAY BE SORT OF OFFENSIVE AND YOU MAY, BUT IF IT'S MY FAVORITE SPORTS TEAM, IT'S NOT OFFENSIVE.
AND SO THE ISSUE IS THAT WE'VE TAKEN THAT OFF THE TABLE BY SAYING THE ENTIRE GESTURE, IT'S OFFENSIVE.
THAT'S OUTTA THE, SO WE KNOW WHAT THAT IS.
BUT THEN YOU GET TO THE WHAT IS IT GONNA HAPPEN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT.
AND SO THERE ARE TIMES WE MAY ARGUE WITH OUR LOVED ONES, WE MAY HAVE DISAGREEMENTS WITH OUR FRIENDS THAT DON'T INCITE A BREACH OF THE PIECE.
THERE ARE CERTAIN BEHAVIORS WITH CERTAIN PARTS OF OUR SOCIETY WHERE THE GESTURE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE MIGHT BE REALLY OFFENSIVE TO AN OUTSIDER, BUT HAVE NO BEARING ON THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED.
IT MAY BE COMMONLY HOW WE INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE, THEY DIDN'T GIVE US THE GESTURE ITSELF.
THEY DON'T ASK US TO EVEN DECIDE IS IT OFFENSIVE OR NOT.
THEY JUST SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, IT'S AN OFFENSIVE GESTURE.
AND WHAT DOES THAT DO? AS WRITTEN, IT PROVOKE IT, IT PROVOKES AN ARGUMENT, WHICH CLEARLY MATCHES THE DISORDERLY CONDUCT THING, WHICH IT INCITES.
AND I DON'T EVEN INCITES AN IMMEDIATE BREACH OF THE PEACE.
IT TENDS TO INCITE IMMEDIATE BREACH OF THE PEACE.
IF YOU'RE THE OTHER PATRON, IT WOULD BE HARD TO SAY YOU WEREN'T HAD, DIDN'T HAVE YOUR IMPEACH OF BREACH OR EVEN INTENDED TO DO THAT BECAUSE YOU WERE PROVOKED INTO THE ARGUMENT.
IT'S DEFINITELY A TOUGH ONE, BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH.
DID CAPTAIN, TRUSTEE, DID YOU WANNA SAY, SO SOMETHING
AND, AND, AND JUST ONE QUICK COMMENT BASED OFF WHAT CAPTAIN MCCULLEY SAID.
UH, VERY BRIEF AND, AND I APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S, UH, ACCOMMODATING ME ON THIS.
UH, CAPTAIN MCCOLEY IS A VERY, UH, TALENTED SPEAKER AND, AND VERY, UH, SMART GUY.
HE JUST SAID SOMETHING THOUGH THAT, THAT I WAS, UH, STRUGGLING WITH.
HE, HE SAID, YOU KNOW, WE, WE GET IN ARGUMENTS WITH OUR FRIENDS AND LOVED ONES ALL THE TIME, BUT THEY DON'T TEND TO, UH, INCITE AN IMMEDIATE BREACH OF THE PEACE.
I THOUGHT HIS ARGUMENT WAS, OR I'M SORRY, NO PUN INTENDED, BUT I THOUGHT HIS STATEMENT ON THIS, UH, APPEAL WAS AN ARGUMENT AND A BREACH OF THE PEACE ARE THE SAME THING.
ARE THEY OR ARE THEY NOT? AND UNFORTUNATELY, UH, I'M SORRY, I WISH, I WISH WE WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU, UH, OTHER SOURCES THAT THAT WOULD CLEAR THIS UP, BUT WE CAN'T, UH, THIS WILL BE THE LAST THING I SAY ON THIS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR Y'ALL'S CONSIDERATION AND UH, AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR ACCOMMODATING ME WITH THIS, UH, ZOOM CALL.
UH, GIVEN THE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE PROVIDED, I THINK WE ARE SAFE IN ELIMINATING ITEM C.
UH, THE FACT THAT THAT ANSWER IS NOT APPLICABLE, THEN LOOKING AT ITEM A, UH, GIVEN THE TESTIMONY THAT WE'VE HAD FROM OUR, UM, FROM OUR, UH, INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE TESTIFIED, I THINK ITEM A IS NO LONGER APPLICABLE, WHICH LEAVES ME WITH THE DECISION THAT ONLY B IS CORRECT.
SO I MOVE THAT WE RETAINED QUESTION 57, UH, WITH THE KEY RESPONSE BEING B.
HAVE WE HAVE A, A, A MOTION TO, I I MOVE THAT WE RETAIN THE QUESTIONS AS KEYED.
AND AGAIN, FOR AND AGAIN FOR CLARIFICATION, THAT WAS WITH RESPECT TO QUESTION NUMBER 57, RIGHT? CORRECT.
[01:10:04]
SO THERE'S THE LAST ITEM.SO QUESTION NUMBER 57 IS UPHELD AS ORIGINALLY SCORED.
SO NUMBER, UM, ITEM F IS TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE ELIG ELIGIBILITY LIST FROM THE POLICE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT CHIEF PROMO PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION CONDUCTED ON DECEMBER THE 22ND, 2025.
I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE ELIGIBILITY LIST.
DO WE HAVE SECOND SE SECOND? OKAY.
SO THAT LIST IS APPROVED AND THE NEXT ITEM, UM, IS DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? I DON'T THINK THAT, OR ARE THERE ANY COMMENT FROM THE STAFF OR ANY INFORMATIONAL ITEMS? OKAY.
OKAY, SO, UM, WE MOVE THAT WE ADJOURN.