tvc184

Just when the World can’t get crazier, a grave robber in Pennsylvania found with hundreds of skeletons on his home….. 😳 [Hidden Content]

What is a plato and who cares if it’s banned?

Does anyone think this proposed buy back is illegal?

Not only complete junk but from people who are almost no danger to society. Grandma finds a gun that grandpa had but he died 10 years ago. Grandma is not likely to use that RG .22 short to rob a store or do a mass shooting. It’s actually probably a good deal for her because that piece of junk couldn’t be sold for $10 but she’ll get $100 for it. 🤣 And NOW the streets are so much safer!!

It’s claimed logic that I don’t understand. Let’s see, he is in a patrol vehicle with lights, he is wearing police gear, he has a badge and patches that say police but I can’t see his face so it might not be the police. Oh wait, I can clearly see his eyes and nose now, yep, that’s a cop because I can see his eyes and nose!! Because you can tell by a person’s profession by his face? That would be like me walking through the mall and pointing at someone and saying, that’s a firefighter, that’s a nurse, that’s a secretary……

I doubt that the Feds will release body cam footage but it wouldn’t matter. I have already seen a usually complainer make the accusation that no one was in danger. Then when video clearly showed that the woman drove at the officer, the same person ignored the previous claim and started in about the officer had other options. If a body cam video shows that he had no time to move, don’t expect an admission of ignorance in the situation and the complaining will go in another tangent.

I was agreeing with you. I was using your using the article that you posted and my comments were taken from the article accusations and comments. The article made the claim of the mayor saying that she was caring for a neighbor. The article cited reporter asking about when shots were fired.

Yep… it’s that little bugaboo in the law that says a person has a reasonable belief. People want it when it refers to them trying to defend themselves, but don’t want it when is the police.

She hit him. The second video clearly shows it. It’s kind of funny and interesting that you bring up the mayor making up stories. My previous comment before I saw yours brought up the fact that the media and politicians can simply lie and then deflect any follow up.

She was caring for her neighbor…. by illegally blocking a road? The media in the article asks Secretary Noem if the officer fired before or after he was struck (felony assault) by the vehicle. Does it matter? Maybe one of the great things about being a politician or a member of the media is that you don’t have to make sense. To heck with the law, to heck with a reasonable belief, etc., just spit out nonsense and then usually deflect any follow up questions.

And… It doesn’t matter what she intended. The standard for self defense is a reasonable belief. And… Hitting a person with a vehicle and driving is a felony assault and felony leaving the scene in most (or all?) jurisdictions. The use of force or deadly force to stop a person who has committed a violent act and is a continued danger to the public is lawful in most (or all?) jurisdictions as upheld by the Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner.

From a video it looks like she actually hit an agent as she drove toward him.

KFDM has an article about an upcoming gun buy back in Beaumont. The article mentions a justice of the peace and the city manager of Beaumont mentioning it in city council meeting. Interesting. There is a new state law that went into effect in September that says: “A municipality or county may not adopt or enforce an ordinance, order, or other measure in which the municipality or county organizes, sponsors, or participates in a program that purchases or offers to purchase firearms with the intent to: (1) remove firearms from circulation; (2) reduce the number of firearms owned by civilians; or (3) allow individuals to sell firearms without fear of criminal prosecution.” It seems interesting after reading the news article and the state law. Maybe there’s nothing to it but when the article mentions a justice of the peace is helping to get sponsors, a city manager announces it at a council meeting and it’s supposed to take place on city property, does that cross into the “organizes” or “participates in” part of the law? [Hidden Content]

It seems like if people keep attacking law enforcement, they are eventually going to get to the find out portion of the equation.

Wong Kim Ark was about people lawfully in the country. They immigrated lawfully and had been granted permanent residency. This current case is not about legal immigration. Wong Kim Ark’s family did not commit a crime to enter the United States. In the current case it is about a person entering the United States while committing a crime. Precedents don’t really matter They only matter in trials and lower court rulings. For example locally in Jefferson County, if the police arrest a person and then take a sworn confession from him but the police did not advise the person of his constitutional rights under Miranda, it is an unlawfully obtained confession. Precedent tells the trial judge to disallow the statement and any evidence gathered from the unlawful statement. The Supreme Court however doesn’t have to go by precedent and can overturn its own decisions. An example is that Roe v Wade said that states could not stop abortions within certain limits but in Dobbs v Jackson WHO the precedent was overturned. Some people cried foul because Roe v. Wade had been precedent for 49 years. That can’t be!! But let’s take a trip down memory lane. In 1896 the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson said that segregation was lawful as long as accommodations were equal. That gave us the phrase separate but equal. Colored water fountains, lunch counters, etc., were constitutional Then in 1954, almost 60 years later, the Supreme Court in Brown v Board of Education said that segregation in schools was unconstitutional, effectively overturning Plessy v Ferguson. Awesome! The Supreme Court overturned a bad ruling in Plessy. Precedents should not be locked into stone. Oh, guaranteed abortions were overturned? Supreme Court precedents should be locked in stone! So apparently one side of the aisle thinks that precedents should stand!! Well, except the ones that we don’t like…..