tvc184

Some people call it loopholes. I call it rights. The government can’t violate your rights in the interest of responsibility. A true loophole in my opinion is statutory (enacted by a legislature) law that forgets or makes exceptions for some acts. For example some people (not me) think it is a loophole in the law on how to purchase of a firearm. If you go to a sporting goods store and buy any firearm, you must present a license (such as a Texas license to carry a handgun) to prove that you have already passed a background check or submit to the checking of your background by computer at the point of sale or you are denied the right to purchase that firearm. However…. You could legally buy the same firearm on the street from a total stranger without either of you having ever identified or gotten the name of the other person. You have to pass all kinds of checks and produce valid identification to buy from a store but nothing at all needed for a face to face purchase from an unidentified stranger. That would be what some people call a loophole and in fact the media calls that the gun show loophole. Agree or disagree with that situation, it doesn’t go into the right against unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment) or rights to remain silent and have legal representation (Fifth and Sixth Amendments). Does the government have to follow a bunch of rules called “rights”? Absolutely. Which rights are you personally willing to give up? It wasn’t the politicians that made those rules, it was the Founding Fathers who framed the Constitution. Again, which rights are you willing to sign away so that we can make sure that criminals are caught? I am not willing to give up any of my rights and the fact that the Constitution gives me as a police officer rules to follow doesn’t offend me. I understand the frustration but the rules can’t just apply to the “other guy”. Imo……

That would be correct. I would think it isn’t likely in this case. I watched a YouTube video a few years ago and a lawyer was talking about trials and evidence. I think his position was, you are not found “innocent” in a trial. You might not be found guilty however. I believe his argument went like, if a guy knows his transporting a kilo of heroin under the front seat of a car, he is guilty. No matter what a judge or jury determines or if the matter goes to court at all, he is still guilty of the crime. The crime did not vanish just because it cannot be proven. Then he went into his job as an attorney. Because of abuses in the legal system going back to English common law and statutory law, soon after the Constitution was ratify, we added the Bill of Rights to guarantee certain protections. His job as an attorney is at least partly to make sure all of the rights and other rules/laws are followed. One of the first things attacked or at least looked at by the defense is reasonable suspicion or probable cause, both from the Fourth Amendment under unreasonable searches and seizures. If the government (usually police) did not follow the rules, all evidence discovered “after” the violation, will be excluded from consideration at trial. In this particular case, you asked about the video. The question becomes in court, how did the police or district attorney come by the video? For example, did the police unlawfully detain a person and get the cell phone? If so the cell phone evidence would be excluded because of the unlawful detention. Let’s say the detention and seizing of the phone for evidence was completely lawful but the police then searched the phone later without a warrant. The detention could be upheld as lawful under reasonable suspicion and the seizure of the phone could be found lawful as possibly having evidence…. but the search without a warrant would exclude the video on the phone. So the police acted lawfully in the first two actions (detention and seizure of evidence) but unlawfully in the search of the phone. Therefore the phone search is thrown out. However…. Just to hopefully clarify that evidence is excluded “after” an unlawful action, here is a “what if”. As the scenario I gave, the detention was lawful. Let’s say that the defendant was the one detained and when the police stopped (seized) him, he blurted out “I didn’t mean to hurt the guy that bad and I didn’t get the phone because I couldn’t get it out of his pocket”. After that, the defendant’s phone was seized lawfully. The later unlawful search without a warrant removes the video from his phone but, the detention and blurting of of basically a confession would probably be found as lawful. If a person blurts out a statement without being questioned, it is generally allowed into evidence called a Res Gestae statement. An example of a Res Gestae utterance would be like the police responded to a crowd gathering around a body and the police officers responding made a comment to the crowd, “what happened”. A guy in the crowd then yells out, “I told that guy if he disrespected me I was going to shoot him so I did”. That would most likely be allowed for the officers to repeat in court because it wasn’t from a “custodial interrogation” which would require Miranda. So the simple answer is, yes, there is a legal possibility to exclude the video. I am completely guessing that the video was taken by another person and forwarded to others who later turned it over to the police. That would probably be a lawful obtaining of the video but you can bet that the defense is going to look into how the video was obtained.

That is what I was talking about. Usually if a am making something for the first time, I follow a known recipe almost exactly. I might then tweak it or experiment with it later. With this CG I used about 3 different ones in a kind of mix and match and didn’t measure anything.

Absolutely. Not only can be left out but not allowed by law or appeals court decisions.

You guessed it boys and girls, it is racist. According to a CNN article, they don’t use the term racist but go to length to show it more negatively effects people of color. CRT teaches that if you are born without a certain number of melanin pigments then you are a racist at birth. Then we recently learned that math was inherently racist. Please ignore that NASA might not have gotten rockets off the ground had it not been for many Black female math geniuses (maybe they didn’t get the memo). Next comes the clocks. Who knew that POC were negatively impacted by getting an extra hour of sleep in the fall? All we have to do is look at this from researcher Chandra Jackson…. “As for the inequities seen in sleep health, it’s not that White adults don’t also experience a lack of sleep and its health consequences – but people of color appear to disproportionately experience them more, and that’s believed to be largely due to social systems in the United States”. So we can clearly see that largely due to our social system, DST disproportionately affects POC. After doing further studies on these topics I feel that oxygen will be discovered to favor people with less pigmentation in their epidermis. [Hidden Content]

Yeah, that’s it. But I wrote so much in the new thread…. 🥲

I do a lot of cooking. Sometimes it is just to cook. I have cooked dinner many times for my shift at work including dispatchers, usually completely at my expense. Gumbo, chili, beans (usually Anasazi) and rice, Budae Jjigae (Korean Army Stew), Butter Chicken (Indian dish almost like Tikka Masala), Chinese BBQ (Char Siu), Pozole (rojo), shredded BBQ pork (pulled pork but not several hours of smoking) for sandwiches, Spaghetti, Zuppa Tuscana, Hot and Sour Soup, Thai green (or red, yellow, etc.) curry, Mongolian Beef (one of my wife’s favorites), Chicken and Dumplings, Mapo Tofu, Apple Dumplings (perhaps the greatest dessert ever) and so one. But…… The reason that I thought about this thread however, was that with all the different cultures and foods that I cook, I have never made Carne Guisada which is my favorite Mexican food. There was a thread on here quite a while back where a couple of us discussed Carne Guisada and which restaurants had a good version of it. Today I broke down and made it for the first time. There are mixes/seasoning you can buy such as Fiesta brand where you can just toss in some meat and water or broth and a certain amount of the seasoning. I think HEB has a version of it. I have heard that it is very good. I got adventurous and made it mostly from scratch. I say mostly because I didn’t make my own chili powder just like when I am making Butter Chicken I don’t make my own Garam Masala although I have seen recipes for it. The dênouement is, it turned out great. It is so stupidly easy that it makes me mad that I have not made it before. It is a lot easier than Pozole. That’s it I made Carne Guisada for the first time and I remembered the prior thread but couldn’t find it. 🤪

I believe most of us kind of thought that was coming. He now moves over to big boy jail and is likely facing up to 20 years or up to 99 years, according to the evidence. I hope they go for prison time but if indicted for Aggravated Robbery (99 years max, depending on injuries and attempted theft), it would probably be an easy plea bargain to drop it to Robbery (20 years max). The DA has the option to go to trial and go for the maximum sentence in front of a jury. They could also offer like 5 years and he would have the possibly be out in a couple of years on parole. So before he is 20, he would potentially be out but have a major violent felony permanently attached to him. If he continues, the next sentence won’t be so gentle. The DA could even offer 10 years and possibly out in 5. According to the evidence that can be brought to trial and shown to a jury, he and his attorney might be seriously interested in a plea. Of course he could roll the dice and take his chances with a jury and hope the horribly violent video doesn’t get him a major hit from a jury. Everything depends on what evidence can be brought to trial. Video? Confession? Witness statements? Medical records? If the DA has a solid case, the defendant better have a good attorney and hope for a good offer. Heck, the DA might even go for probation. With the new DA (DA Elect Kieth Giblin)?taking office in January, who knows?

This is a half hour video but an interesting watch considering your latest topic….. [Hidden Content]

It should be apparent that a segment of society doesn’t like free speech at all. With the Musk acquisition of Twitter it has become more blatant with the attempts at justifying censorship. Of course they don’t call it censorship. Most comments that I have seen start out with something like, we are for free speech!!…. but…. Then the statement goes into the justification for not having free speech. The justification brings up hate speech or falsehoods or even a Department of Homeland Security- Disinformation Board. The fact that the federal government and the president had brought up a department or board to decide what you should see or hear, should scare the heck out of everyone.

I think Biden is big time compromised.

Musk is like a kid in a candy store. I will bet that he walks around chuckling every day. I mentioned it above, but watching some of his videos are hilarious. Him trolling Bill Gates was great. The more people whine, the more fun he has.

[Hidden Content]

I have watched quite a few Musk short videos that pop up on my Facebook feed. The guy is a freaking riot. He is entertaining to say the least.

I don’t disagree with your premise but…. (and “but” almost always means, it is what I claim it isn’t so I will say it anyway ) Yes homosexuals might be “openly” living in sin but how many of the clergy are doing sinful things? Noticing the speck of sawdust in my eye while ignoring the plank in yours doesn’t count just for sex. I can assure you that in my dealings in police work (and on occasion personal knowledge) with members of the clergy were certainly not unheard of. Do I personally want to attend a church being led by someone that I don’t agree with? No but that is a personal choice. Are there other churches led by people that are also committing sins? You betcha!! One is just more blatantly open and maybe more disgusting as it certainly makes some people squeamish.

I don’t feel like doing a lot of research but I kept an eye on the polls leading up to the election. A lot of predictions are based on trends from prior elections and not just raw data. An example might be that the Democrat candidate got X% in the same poll (such as Gallup) in the last election. So maybe Gallup had the Democrat candidate up by 15% but he/she won by 10%. The Democrat candidate still won but the poll was skewed in favor of the Democrat. Let’s say that that same trend from the same poll showed the same bias but the last 4 elections. Generally speaking it would be easy to conclude that the polling company almost always overestimates the Democrats by 5%. So if the same poll showed the Democrat up by 3% it would be an easy conclusion that the Republican might be ahead. Polls in politics are like football polls. It is interesting but doesn’t count for anything other than discussion. Look at the coronation of Hillary Clinton that the Dems were so sure to win. So if most major polls showed a trend toward the Republicans in this election, considering prior comparison polls, did the Republicans underperform or were the opinion polls just wrong… or did a last minute lie tip the scales such as Biden and Clyburn saying that Democracy would end up like Nazi Germany…. with a majority of the public not even understanding what he was saying but it must be bad. That leads to this thread and Trump. Trump was a hinderance to the Republicans!! Or was he….. No Republican incumbent senator lost. From what I have read, Trump gave Zeldin in NY his complete endorsement against Hochul. Hochul won so Trump hurt Zeldin? In the 2018 NY governor’s race, Republican candidate got 36% of the vote in what is a very liberal state. In 2010 the Republican candidate got 33% and in 2014 they didn’t even hold a primary. In this election Zeldin got 47% of the vote. Was it a repudiation of Trump or did the Trump endorsement give Zeldin a fighting chance. Let’s see, the last 3 NY gubernatorial elections for the Republicans resulted in 33%, no primary and 36%…. then 47% after a Trump endorsement. That is often the flaw in looking at one result without analyzing the cause of the result. Hochul won so therefore Trump hurt Zeldin…. Hmmm….. I suppose if you ignore the prior two decades of Democratic wins by up to almost 2 to 1 margins. I guess the Democrat and anti Trump Republicans would have you believe that the Democrats are so bad that if Trump had stayed on the sidelines, the Republicans would have annihilated them. Perhaps that is true but for that conclusion you have to admit how very bad the Democrats are right now.

He can claim all he wants. Political parties are private businesses, unlike elections. The DNC admitted after the 2016 election that it was rigged for Hillary to win the primary. Oh well…….

Vote harvesting is criminal. Is your suggestion that Republicans resort to crimes to counteract the other side?

Ranked choice makes a lot of sense. It is a toss up which system is better but ranked choice has its merits.

Both houses. That is 67 senators and 291 representatives. Good luck….

This if the situation. It looks like the Republicans will control the House with about a 98% certainty at this point. It looks like the Democrats will control the Senate with about a 98% certainty at this point. The Republican minimum goal was to take at least one house. That would effectively kill any legislation for the next 2 years without their consent. Any legislation will have to be bipartisan. The next goal would be to take both houses. The benefit of taking the Senate would be that any nominations by Biden would have to get Republican approval. For the most part that is not that big of a deal unless Biden gets to nominate another Supreme Court justice. So the Republicans appear to have taken the House but it isn’t official yet. If that holds up, they have met their goal of ending unrestricted Democrat legislation. They almost had that anyway with the filibuster in the Senate but the Democrats kept pushing to end the filibuster. With controlling either house it ends all doubt. It is assumed that if the Republicans take the House that Kevin McCarthy will be elected as the Speaker of the House. I have seen discussions tonight about a narrow win in the House like if the Republicans only held a 5 vote majority, would give him a hard time keeping 3 RINO Republicans from switching sides on some votes and allowing a bill to pass without Republican approval. That would be incorrect. No bill can come up for a vote without the approval of the Speaker. So even if the Democrats technically had the votes to narrowly pass a bill, McCarthy could kill it by not bringing it up for a vote. Even if McCarthy is able to get bills passed easily, it won’t matter s the Senate will not pass the safe bill without bipartisan support. If the Republicans did manage to ram a bill through in both houses, Biden could simply veto it. So the bottom line has always been to take at least one house while understanding that even with both houses, the Republicans cannot get a law enacted without Biden’s approval. It appears that the Republicans will achieve that goal and effectively kill any free spending without them approving until at least the next presidential election. Unless Biden gets to nominate another Supreme Court justice, the Democrats keeping the Senate is almost nothing more than pride. In my opinion…..

After I turned my card in, I told the workers that we have now gone back to the old punch cards but instead of using the stylus to punch out the corresponding tab, the computer does it for us. They said something like like, yep.

Why is Chicago, Miami, Maricopa County and other Democrat strong locations that seem to continually have trouble??

It’s a good thing we got away from the old punch card ballots to a modern system that is foolproof. They have only had 22 years to work out the bugs…..

I voted at 7:30am. Jefferson County has their new publicized voting machines and system. There was one person voting when I entered and then it was me and 3 workers. And…. they had no record of me by address, name, date of birth, etc. Questions like, how long have you lived at that address? 24 years. Hmmmm….. I told them that I vote in every election and have been to that location for those 20+ years. Apparently the new system lost my voter registration. Hmmmm….. But after about 15 minutes and the poll workers on the phone with the county clerk for several minutes, they found my registration and I got to vote. 😆