I have conflicting feelings over this. I know that open carry is a thing in Texas, but who crossed the line, if anyone?

Yes, they do. It's not a silly question.

It's a very good question because it brings to the forefront how this should be viewed from a Constitutional perspective. Does this mean you will need a license in Texas in the near future to speak your mind in public? Will there be a Hitler-style church-tax? Does it mean you will have to take a test to assert your 4th and 14th amendment rights in the near future? Will you need a license to assert your right to not self-incriminate? Will you have to render payment to acquire these licenses and when you have to renew them? Will you have to get a license to vote? What's more dangerous? Openly carry a firearm or voting some turd into office? Don't forget this is a right, as matter of fact one that is listed right after free speech and religion. Any limitation, license, fee, bureaucratic requirement, etc... that is leveraged on any one right is precedence under "stare decisis" to leverage the same on all of the others. Fighting this fight takes tearing down every prima-facie unconstitutional law, edict, tax, licensing requirement, etc. right away. The licensing and fees for anything firearm related can be fought under the precedences set for poll taxes and voter identification, for example. Paying fees and taxes for rights has been held unconstitutional many times over. Allowing it means only the wealthy can afford to be equal under the constitution, a concept that was abandoned over 100 years ago.

Well, the problem with that is, what it always is in this country, appropriate, consistent, and equal application of the law. The punishment for officers knowingly falsely arresting someone are already very severe. It is the justice system that fails to prosecute (prosecutors a.k.a District Attorneys have full discretion in this country to initiate a prosecution or not - only bar rules can be employed to sanction this). Don't forget that a police officer can only bring a person to court (via arrest or summons) and present evidence as to the involvement of that person in a crime. An officer does not convict anyone. A police officer is basically only a reporter, and in extreme cases is empowered to temporarily remove a person from public who, by the stipulations of the law, is deemed dangerous to themselves or others at the time (drunk driver for e.g.) or generally (murderer, for e.g.). All arrests in all states and territories are reviewed by a judge within a very short time (within 20 or so hours of the arrest), and most persons in custody will be in front of a judge within 48 hours for their arraignment, where a judge decides if they remain in custody or not. They are represented by an attorney at that time and the arresting officer or officers have to present their rationale for their arrest at that point. This does not preclude the officers from lying or presenting false evidence, but in most cases it takes a complicit District Attorney to render a conviction on such basis in court, as they are the only person able to suppress exculpatory evidence only known to the prosecution There are many such DA's still in public service (and not just as DA's, some moved on to being judges and politicians), who have been caught doing that, but were never prosecuted or even disbarred. In this case, particularly as later established in the civil case, there is sufficient probable cause for the officers to be brought to court to answer to charges of deprivation of rights under color of authority, conspiracy to deprive persons of rights under color of authority, and a number of more minor violations. The issue is that for them to see a judge, a District Attorney has to file those charges. The City Attorney is obviously politically inclined to not file any charges, as the officers are doing the city's bidding. It would be up to county or state to file charges (as this is a violation of civil rights, even the feds could), and for the state bar to do something about the City Attorney failing to act where he would generally be required to act, depending on the bar charter and rules. This generally never happens, even though it should. Laws only work if they are enforced on the merit of their intent (not based on politics and emotions), unilaterally, consistently, and equally. Most of the problems facing our nation today are based on the fact that our country's core is based on law (constitutional republic concept), and the fact that the judicial system that is supposed to uphold it is ultimately largely corrupt in every sense, power, politics, money, you name it. Actively serving District Attorneys, Attorney Generals, and Judges also serving as private legal contractors, also serving on private or corporate advisory boards, etc..., along with maintaining long-standing political party, secret society, and exclusive club affiliations spell disaster for real justice.

SGT Tim. Wilson I'm not sure what happened to the original links. The post is 2 years old, so there's no telling. There are over 1k comments on this post. As I scrolled through them, I ran across a few links to videos and the phone call between the 2 parties the day prior.