tvc184

I agree completely of the Supreme Court will allow executive orders to do so If Trump can strip the states and cities from federal funding, that would be awesome. Let them put their money where their mouth is.

1. Yes. The Minnesota protests and others similar are not protected speech. They are criminal acts with some being a felony. People standing on the sidewalk and shouting their disapproval are not included but anyone that interferes with the law enforcement, any government operation or denying citizen access including blocking roads, trying to slow down government vehicles, etc., are committing a crime. 2. Agree however, the Fourth Amendment doesn’t take a lot to reach reasonable suspicion for a detention but it requires at least some facts and circumstances. I am not sure what ICE/CBP are using as justification for detentions. It would have to be on a case by case basis and I never see enough to make a decision one way or the other. Certainly a policy itself can be wrong such as instructing agents that reasonable suspicion is not required. The Supreme Court disagrees, 3. Agree. 4. Agree. 5. Agree. 6. Agree. Actually ties into 2. 7. Agree. 8. Agree however, the Supreme Court can rule against sanctuary policies of states or cities but they have no legislative authority so cannot set penalties or judgments. Their only recourse in my opinion is to rule that sanctuary policies or laws might violate the Supremacy Clause. There then has to be a USC section making it a criminal and/or civil offense. Any enforcement action would have to be prosecuted by the DOJ. Is there such a law that specifically makes sanctuary state governments or political subdivision sanctuary actions an offense? If there isn’t, Congress surely isn’t going to pass one. I agree that the children are being used as indoctrination pawns and it is despicable.

Notwithstanding whatever that document says, what does that have to do with with thread or my comment? It was a trick question. The answer is nothing. 🤣 I guess when you are ready to spit out some more rhetoric, the thread doesn’t matter.

She has no worry…… probably. The judge didn’t side with Trump or immigration enforcement. She merely noted that the appeals court has already ruled.

At least she was smart enough not to go with her own opinion and accept the precedent. From the article, the judge said that the Minnesota AG made a strong showing on shutting down the immigration operation… but noted that the appeals court has already ruled on a similar issue.

That’s the new mantra of the left. Throwing an F bomb on any scenario shows just how angry they are!! 🤣

They have mostly a takeout business and only a couple of sides. The brisket dirty rice is great though. They also have pretty good tamales in my opinion but that might be the most subjective food ever. The tamales are not on the menu and they usually make them by order with at least a day’s notice. They have limited hours like Tuesday-Saturday and maybe Noon to 7pm but I never remember. It’s a small operation with usually just a man and his son and sometimes his mother making tamales. I like their brisket at least as much as one that is seemingly famous locally in Beaumont and at half the price. I told them that they needed to start doing beef ribs.

I wish that wasn’t over an hour round-trip. Now I go to Grangel’s for my brisket. ….. which is only about a 15 minute round trip.

The tolerant left…. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 [Hidden Content]

I remember it well and made a few social media posts about it. It also showed that Qualified Immunity didn’t stop the police officer from a 60 prison sentence for falsifying a probable cause affidavit. Obviously that long sentence was not for perjury but that the perjury led to a Felony Murder charge.

In both cases I believe that they are open to being charged in a crime. That is to say that they have no Qualified Immunity that protects them from criminal prosecution (as in all cases). Both cases resulted in intentionally or knowingly killing a person (Texas culpable mental states) so Murder unless under self defense which is the issue. Everyone knows who did it and the results. The only real question in my opinion is whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it was clearly not a case of self defense. Without knowing Minnesota or federal laws on self defense, I will rely on Texas law only as a similar situation. The shooting of Good in my opinion clearly has reasonable doubt that it was not Murder. I don’t think the agent had the culpable mental state (as I have seen claimed numerous times) of, I know that I am not in danger but here’s a chance to take out a protester. If this incident happened locally, I would expect a No Bill from the grand jury. I have no clear opinion on Pretti but I lean toward the same results but not as clear. In Good the agent was alone and we could see what happened for the most part. In Pretti at the speed in which it happened and agents (possibly including the shooter) yelling gun and the continued struggle, I believe that it would take some definitive information that the agent knew that no one was in danger and merely chose to take out a demonstrator. Unlike Good, we have no clear video of what happened in the scrum as the one video called it. As you know that the burden is always on the government to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Only as an anecdote, I was the supervisor on scene of a homicide where two guys confronted each other outside of a club about a block away from the entrance. One guy pulled a gun and fired it, possibly to scare the other guy away. It worked and the other guy left. However….. He walked about a block away in the other direction, got a pistol out of his car, came back and confronted the guy who fired the shot and then shot and killed him. I said at the scene that it was clearly Murder because it wasn’t a stand your ground case in my opinion. The suspect had left the scene and was out of danger since the guy who fired the shot didn’t follow him. He came back to the scene, now armed, to continue the argument and ended up killing the other guy. The DA did not get an indictment from the grand jury. Obviously by law it’s the grand jury‘s opinion and not the DA’s but it was clearly a Murder under Texas law (intentionally or knowingly took another person‘s life) but with self defense as a defense to prosecution. Obviously the DA could likely have pushed for an indictment and let a trial jury make the call (a principle which I do not believe in) but apparently there was a reasonable doubt in the opinion of the DA that they could not overcome in front of a jury. It does not matter if the guy was guilty. What matters is the proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If a jury is 90% sure that a crime was committed, that to me is not guilty. It is the same standard everywhere. The elements might change depending on jurisdiction. It is the same in the Pretti case for now. Is there body cameras which show a clear picture of what happened and the agent knew that no one was in danger? That’s possible but I believe that is what it would take to bring criminal charges. So Good in my opinion should be a No Bill unless there’s evidence that hasn’t been made public which is always possible. Pretti is in limbo but that in my opinion means no case unless there is evidence that hasn’t been made public. The other agent grabbing Pretti’s pistol before the shots were fired will probably have no bearing unless it can be shown that the agent shooting knew that the danger had been removed and had time to respond. More in a layman’s terms, if an issue is debatable then there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If it is beyond debate or the evidence clearly shows that there was no reasonable belief of possible serious bodily injury or death, it should be brought to trial. Notwithstanding that a defense will always claim there is a reasonable doubt. Do you think there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, in what is now public information, that the agent knew that there was no threat under split second decision making under the Supreme Court ruling in Graham v. Connor?

I am usually humored on social media on how many people believe that Qualified Immunity protects an officer/agent from being charged in a crime.

Imagine that, if you didn’t violate the law then you can’t be personally sued.

Just a passive and honorable VA nurse trying to help others.

That is a good article. He actually went into the incident and I tried to stick to the laws that I think apply to the situation.