All Activity

As an ICU nurse who supposedly was given medication for his ribs, I wonder if he was on oxycodone? Hadn’t thought of that… That would definitely impair his judgement.

So CNN is Fake News....., that could be true - but there are medical records that back up CNN's story. End of the day, he could of attacked and beat up agents the previous week. It would not help or hurt this case. If true, it just shows he was making poor decisions that eventually led to his death.... I wonder who convinced this grown, apparently smart (ICU nurse) to commit crimes supporting a fake narrative?

That’s an excellent breakdown—to me. If I understand what you’re saying, the two go hand-in-hand as a means to a decision. I’m not an attorney. But, it always seemed to say—in layman’s terms—to not just focus on the instant, but to look at ALL things without a definite time limit. Even those events that may not directly be involved in the specific circumstance. (i.e. recent threats, other stops that may have had an effect on the officer’s judgment, community events, etc.) That’s why I believe the agent/agents in the Pretti issue will have a strong argument that—while not pleasant to watch, and maybe not the best—they didn’t act with bad intent. They made a split decision under duress. Do I think they may be better suited for some type of ‘off the street duty?’ Yes. For their own psychological needs if nothing else.

I believe the name of her Winery is “The Learing Winery” The daycare children personally squish the grapes into wine. 😁

Someone could post the sun is shining today and you’d respond by saying Trump is causing the sun to burn the earth! Smh

The totality of circumstances is not a legal standard for determining a decision. The totality of circumstances is the means by which a decision is made. In short it means, did you look at everything. The totality of circumstances means that you have to look at all factors before making a decision. The totality of circumstances is not the decision but how you get there. To judge an officer’s use of force, you can’t simply look at the moment of threat which is something that the Fifth Circuit Court basically invented on their own. That meant, if an officer was in danger at any moment in time, he could lawfully respond to that threat. That is not what the Supreme Court said because the officer could have been committing a crime and that crime may have been the reason that the officer was in danger. For example, what if an officer had unlawfully stopped someone without the required reasonable suspicion? Then he jumped out for no reason and started beating on the person with a baton risking, serious injury or death to the innocent person. The innocent person then took the baton away to try and survive and the officer then shot the innocent person. Obviously at the moment the officer used deadly force, he was in danger. A person had an impact weapon and could seriously injure or kill the officer. That is why the moment of threat in itself doesn’t work. Sure the officer was an extreme danger at that moment but he caused himself to be in the extreme danger by committing a crime. In such cases (actually all cases) the totality of circumstances tells you “how” to arrive at a decision but it is not in itself the legal standard. It simply means to look at the entire situation before rendering an opinion. That standard is in the police use of force is “objective reasonableness” or what would a “reasonable” officer do under the same circumstances. Obviously, if an officer made an unlawful traffic stop like in my example and then jumped out and started using unlawful force, that is not what a reasonable officer would do. That loses in the objective reasonableness standard from Graham v. Connor. Again, how do we arrive at the objective reasonableness (legal) standard? By looking at the entire situation. That entire situation is the totality of circumstances which (again) is not the standard but the means. The totality of circumstances, when judging an officer’s use of force is meaningless without the standard of objective reasonableness. So we use the totality of circumstances to arrive at the Supreme Court legal standard for the use of force….. objective reasonableness. Since you cited the Supreme Court website, here is a quote from that site: “Held: A claim that a law enforcement officer used excessive force during a stop or arrest is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, which requires that the force deployed be objectively reasonable from “the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386, 396. The inquiry into the reasonableness of police force requires analyzing the “totality of the circumstances.” We can see from the words of the Supreme Court “Held” that the use of force “requires that the force be objectively reasonable” as ruled in Graham. That if the Supreme Court talking, not me. The Supreme Court goes on to say that we arrive at objectively reasonable by… “analyzing the ‘totality of circumstances’”. So the totality of circumstances which people get fixated on is not the standard for judging the police use of force. That standard is objective reasonableness as determined by looking at the entire incident and not just the last couple of seconds. The Supreme Court in Barnes did not even look at the situation involving Officer Felix and plainly said that they didn’t even look into the situation or answered any questions about the officer initiating the situation. The only conclusion was, look at the entire traffic stop and not merely the moment that shots were fired and determine if the officer’s actions were “reasonable”. The Fifth Circuit heard the case again almost immediately have said, Yep, we looked at the entire thing and came for the same conclusion. The officers’s actions were objectively reasonable.

Will be tuned in to these games tonight: 23-6A Atascocita at Humble Texan Live CE King at Summer Creek Hudl 21-3A Huntington at Central Heights NFHS 23-3A Crockett at Coldspring Hudl 24-2A Chireno at Shelbyville NETsn San Augustine at West Sabine Hudl

Marxism is making another attempt. How's about we just follow the laws on the books, passed by the People's Representatives in Congress? I believe they're as simple as illegal immigration is just that...ILLEGAL. Deport those here illegally with their limited due process rights, and quit making carve-outs. Either that, or change the law.

Spoke with coach last night. Jasper out played Vidor. Made the plays necessary to win. Jasper getting things turned around. Definitely have a shot at playoffs.

From the article: “DHS has no record of this incident”. This is gonna be Trump’s Kent State. Fascism has reached it’s high water mark in this country..

To be honest, this score did not surprise me at all.

It was rhetorical…

The actual majority opinion in Barnes v Felix 23-1239 (05/15/2025) is linked. Please read the majority opinion reasoning on Page 7. The moment-of-threat rule applied in the courts below prevents that sort of attention to context, and thus conflicts with this Court’s instruction to analyze the totality of the circumstances. [Hidden Content]

Yep. Whitmire knows. Houston City Council is another matter. I’m just glad I live in La Porte, and not Houston. I thought Texas just passed a law outlawing ‘sanctuary policies’ anyway?

If the city and county uphold the ICE warrants like they should, none of this would happen. There would be no need to apprehend people in the streets as they are likely already in custody. Imagine a system or a violent criminal is in the county jail and the federal government has a hold on them and the powers that be want to hurry up and get the violent criminal back out on the street again quickly….. so they can escape federal warrants. It’s the movie Idiocrasy playing out in real life.

Any Sleeper picks this year to do something and shake things up?

That is 100% false. It is not a true standard, and Barnes did not say that either. The standard has been objective reasonableness, and Barnes only reaffirm that. I have read multiple opinions, including the one you posted, where people apparently are only reading headlines, which are written by other people who did not read the case.

Even Gov. Abbott is saying there needs to be a reset. If the Texas Governor says that, it’s fairly obvious there’s an issue—in perception and communication at the least. Houston City Council meeting last night was overrun with people demanding the city stop working with ICE. Right now, Houston holds those with ICE warrants—just like they hold anyone for any other agency. But, they don’t assist in any other way that’s not a normal part of their duties. The madness is spreading.

The blame game. [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content]

Beaumont stepping up their game…. [Hidden Content]

At one time Memorial led 14-2. Then got out scored 59-26.

See above post.

Actually, the majority SCOTUS opinion explicitly states “the totality of the circumstances” in Barnes v Felix 2025 as the reasoning that should be used to determine use of force. Also, this paper was developed by the Congressional Research Office, which is a part of the Federal Government that advises Congress on SCOTUS for legislative needs. It doesn’t advocate for any position. It merely advises of decisions.

The Dave Campbell's crew will be live at the Birdville Fine Arts Complex for the UIL Realignment announcemnet on Monday Feb 2, we''ll go on the air at 845am. Greg Tepper will host and I'll be on for analysis. We'll have a few DFW area coaches on along with an interview with the UIL. The broadcast is free across all Dave Campbell's platforms, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, TexanLive, etc.