When I read the article about the police, prisoner and the horses, I knew that the police were going to be the villains ("Photo of man being led by horseback officers draws outcry," The Daily News, Aug. 6).

If the prisoner hadn’t done something wrong he wouldn't have had to follow the police. Maybe one of the police officers should've given him the horse and he could walk, and then all the "Dudley Do Right’s" would've been happy.

It has to be tough to be on the police force, as no matter the crime, they will be wrong. Police have been paid to protect the innocent people, but now some people want them to protect the criminals. Walk in a policeman’s shoes for a week and see how you wind up feeling about people who break the law.

Eddie Janek

Galveston

Locations

(27) comments

Emile Pope

First, he wasn’t a criminal. He was an alleged criminal. Second, does the fact that he was accused of a crime mean that their rights are diminished? That they don’t deserve protection? Or does accusation mean guilt and punishment?

Carlos Ponce

First, your "alleged criminal" has a history of arrests and incarcerations. According to the GCDN: "The arrest appears to have been made under a standing order to arrest Neely if he was seen on the property after multiple other arrests this year at the same location [Galveston Park Board of Trustees’ headquarters, 601 23rd St.]. Neely was arrested on Saturday afternoon and charged with criminal trespassing, a misdemeanor that carries a fine of up to $2,000 and a jail term of up to 180 days."

Second, what "rights" were diminished? Upon arrest he has to be read his Miranda Rights: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.” Are you alleging these "rights" were not read?

Geoff Gainer, President of the Galveston Municipal Police Association stated, "This case exemplifies the disconnect the media and general population have with law enforcement. There are no good optics when making an arrest or detaining a suspect."

Emile Pope

He wasn’t a criminal until convicted. And are you insinuating that arrested people only have Miranda rights? Miranda rights only concern the right of the accused to remain silent. Never involved the actions of law enforcement...

Carlos Ponce

He's been convicted before; SAME CRIME, SAME LOCATION, and had a restraining order NOT to trespass again. The police had standing ORDERS to arrest him if he did. All the officers had to do is notify him of his infraction and read him his Miranda Rights - AGAIN!

Randy Chapman

C'mon Emile, waiting to hear your new angle for the sake of arguing! [yawn]

Carlos Ponce

Emile posts, "First, he wasn’t a criminal. He was an alleged criminal." They caught him in the act, Emile. What about the El Paso shooter? Would Emile also say, "he wasn’t a criminal. He was an alleged criminal,"??????????

Jim Forsythe

A person suspected or accused of committing the offense of criminal trespassing is referred to as an“alleged trespasser.” The word “trespasser” should not be used alone without “alleged” unless the accused entered a plea of guilty or no contest, or unless he has already been convicted at trial of this offence, this time. Carlos, you are putting the Cart Before the Horse. Donald Neely was arrested, not convicted this time. He will get his time before the court, and I hope he gets the help he needs.

Robert Durst was found not guilty after being accused of murder in Galveston.

'What about the El Paso shooter?" Patrick Crusius is accused of the shootings as he has not been convicted of the crimes. "Officials investigating whether suspect wrote a ‘manifesto’ ahead of mass shooting that left many people dead and two dozen injured" If convicted he would then become criminal, as of now he is just a accused criminal.

Carlos Ponce

Let me REPEAT for Jim what I presented to Emile. It seems some are slow on the uptake:

He's been convicted before; SAME CRIME, SAME LOCATION, and had a restraining order NOT to trespass again. The police had standing ORDERS to arrest him if he did.

Jim Forsythe

He is a alleged trespasser for what he did, until he is convicted this time. His conviction of any crimes in the past does not make him guilty this time, until and if he goes before the court and they sentence him . If he is a convicted this time, than it would be a crime and not a alleged crime. Or do you think they he is not going before a judge? He is still a alleged trespasser until then.

A request is different than a restraining order. I may of missed it, but I can not find anywhere that a restraining order had been issued.

"In a phone interview made after the written statement, Bassett said the park board had previously asked the Galveston Police Department to keep Neely off its property. That request was made “several months ago,” she said. On July 11, a Galveston Police Department lieutenant emailed officers telling them to arrest “Donnie or any other transient” at the park board building. "By JOHN WAYNE FERGUSON The Daily News



"Neely was arrested on Saturday afternoon and charged with criminal trespassing, a misdemeanor that carries a fine of up to $2,000 and a jail term of up to 180 days."

"Officers were familiar with Neely, who had been warned against trespassing at that same location several times, according to the statement. He is free on bond."

"Police said Neely was detained by two officers assigned to mounted patrol on suspicion of trespassing. The Associated Press "

"Neely, 43, whose family has told the media that he struggles with mental health issues, was accused of criminal trespassing Saturday when he was arrested"

"Galveston police said Donald Neely, 43, was arrested and charged with criminal trespassing at 306 22nd St. after being warned several times not to do so, the police chief said in a statement." KPRC Click2Houston.






Carlos Ponce

So according to Jim, a CRIMINAL, arrested, jailed and convicted on previous charges for the same crime at the same location should not be considered a criminal when arrested on another date for the same exact crime. That's convoluted thinking, Jim. I never heard Governor Abbott PAROLED Donald Neely so he's still considered a criminal who served his time.

Jim Forsythe

As I stated earlier, NO restraining order, so this is a different alleged crime. It will be alleged until and if he is found guilty this time. He is not guilty, unless a judge says so. Everyone has the rights each time they are charged. Do you want to find him guilty without his rights or give him his Contractual rights?

Donald Neely served his time for past crimes and now is charged with a new charge, and not his old crimes.

Your issues was a restraining order was in place. which was not true. Your issue now is he a CRIMINAL and not the real issue as it does not change Donald Neely's rights. I hope this time he gets the medical help he needs

Carlos Ponce

Jim, the police would not have standing orders to arrest Donald Neely if he trespassed on the same property without a restraining order.

Jim Forsythe

The key word is if he trespassed. Standing orders came from a Judge? A standing order requires a judge to sign off on it and a chiefs orders do not. Like I said, I could not find a restraining order issued, did you?

I may of missed it, but I can not find anywhere that a standing order had been issued by a Judge.



Police Chief sets what he wants his officers to do. He can say, if a person is trespassing arrest them, as his or her actions are illegal.

Carlos Ponce

Check with the judge who issued it. The standing order to police is not given at random. The judiciary must sign off on such.

Carlos Ponce

In Texas, standing orders are a set of rules established by the judges (either county or district court) of a specific county. They are a form of temporary restraining orders.

Jim Forsythe

"Check with the judge who issued it" and that would be?

Carlos Ponce

Look it up, Jim.

Jim Forsythe

If it was true that they had a court order or a standing order, the police would not have said: "On July 11, a Galveston Police Department lieutenant emailed officers telling them to arrest “Donnie or any other transient” at the park board building. " and would have said only one name, and not included or any other transient . It had the same out come, without having to have a judge involved.

As I asked you about a restraining order or a standing order and you found none. I guess the arrest was done under regular police work.



"Like I said, I could not find a restraining order issued, did you?"

"I may of missed it, but I can not find anywhere that a standing order had been issued by a Judge."






Carlos Ponce

Ah, having trouble finding it......I thought you were a google whiz.

Jim Forsythe

You are the one that said a restraining order or a standing order had been issued. I said I can not find it. Unless you find it, the issue is settled.

Carlos Ponce

"Unless you find it, the issue is settled." Yes, it's settled. Jim's lost it. [sad]

Jim Forsythe

You are the one that said a restraining order or a standing order had been issued. I said I can not find it. Unless you find it, the issue is settled.

Carlos Ponce

"Galveston police department officers had a standing order to arrest him if he was seen on the property, city officials said." That was in the GCDN, Jim.

Emile Pope

Actually yes. Until he confessed. Which he did...

Wayne Holt

In your response to Michael Smith's Aug 7 editorial piece, you responded to an assertion regarding the officers lack of racism: "officers who have been threatened, vilified and labeled as racists when nothing could be farther from the truth." (YOUR RESPONSE): Do you have any proof to support anything you've written?

You support the presumption of innocence of the accused in your response above; so far, so good. It's the American way. Why aren't the officers given the presumption of basic human decency and lack of racism? What scintilla of evidence do you possess to imply they are racists? I certainly am not persuaded by any position argued in a way so disconnected from consistent logic.

Emile Pope

Wrong. The person making the comment made a decision not a presumption. And he made that decision based upon no evidence whatsoever. What evidence would you accept? And who cares if you’re “persuaded” or not?

Wayne Holt

How ironic that the very same questions are asked of you concerning your charges of racist intent on the part of the officers. You want people to prove they are not racist when the evidence shows no indication that they treated people differently; in other words, to prove a negative.

As far as persuasion goes, it seems most on these boards have given up on trying to reason with you as you appear to be impervious to fact and commonly accepted definitions of words, while displaying a consistent inability to argue convincingly from premise to conclusion. Hyperventilating isn't a debate technique.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.