tvc184

In a case like Kansas, I think it’s just the opposite. I read a couple of news articles and I’m not sure exactly what the outcome/vote means, but votes like this could be hugely detrimental to the Democrats.

With extremely restricted demographics….

I am not sure who isn’t ready for that conversation but….. In reference to an officer being injured, it is not a special set aside for just police officers. It also involves EMT and firefighters. That additional penalty is because they have to be out there at all times a day or night and take the additional risk. When these cases come up, people often cite police this or police that. No special blah blah blah. That is okay but maybe what most people do not realize is that almost everyone can be covered by the same laws according to the circumstances. When it happens to a member of their family then all of a sudden the law makes sense and people often want it prosecutor “to the extent of the law” and I am not talking about police families. If somebody says something like, I’m going to kick your butt, it is a Class C Assault. It is roughly the equivalent of a traffic citation and no jail time can be assessed and it has a maximum of a $500 fine. If you say those exact same words to a person who “might” testify in let’s say in a traffic citation case (the witness saw a vehicle accident), that barely a crime threat just got bumped to a third degree felony and up to 10 years in prison. Let’s see, a $500 fine or 10 years because a person might have witnessed a traffic accident? Let’s say we have the same class C threat, I am going to kick your butt..… but you yell it at a referee at a high school football game. Oops, it is not a $500 fine maximum but now up to a $2000 fine and six months in jail. That is not for actually doing anything, that is for a comment to a protected status person. Am EMT is treating you and you were swinging your arms around screaming and you hit the EMT causing a red mark on his cheek. You did not intend to do it but you were acting recklessly when you caused the minor injury. A misdemeanor?No, we are back to 10 years in prison for something that was not necessarily intentional. Got mad a Hagar while discussing Trump and slapped him? Oops, 10 years in prison. Why? No matter the physical ability, how good of shape they’re in, how much ability they have to defend themselves or anything else, it is a felony to cause even pain to someone 65 or older. Let’s say a guy grabs a $3 item out of a shopping cart and runs away. Again a class C theft. Turn to run away from the same minor crime and as he does so, bumps into a 65 year old woman and she gets a minor scratch on the arm that needs no more treatment than being wiped off with alcohol. A $500 fine? No… up to 99 years in prison for recklessly injury a person 65 older after shoplifting. Let’s see, a $500 fine or 99 years in prison? Special treatment? I could go on for paragraphs….. So while we are all entitled to our opinions on punishments, it is often said that police are getting special treatment. That is absolutely true in some cases but almost all members of the public are afforded that same protection. People want to make it a police law when there are dozens of laws protecting regular people due to circumstances. Opinion is personal but it should be made from a perspective of knowledge, not ignorance. Also, and there is no way to prove it, but while under oath during questioning to choose a jury (voir dire), the question is almost always asked, can you consider the entire range of punishment? For example is a death penalty case. If under oath during questioning a prospective witness says I will not consider it as penalty because I don’t believe in the death penalty, that person can be rejected with cause. A jury can assess punishment but they do not get to determine the law. In my opinion aperson who testified under oath that he will consider all legal penalties but in reality will not do so, commits a crime. You can’t prove it but a jury is supposed to look at the law the way to written, not legislate from the jury room.

And no, the officer does not get to go in front of the grand jury to plead his case. If indicted, that is for a trial court. Other officers involved may testify in front of the grand jury as long as they are not facing the accusation. A few years ago my partner shot and killed the guy about 10 feet in front of me. A couple of other officers were on scene in addition to the officer that fired the shot. I was the first person to testify in front of the grand jury and eventually, the other officers and witnesses also. That also was a very clear cut case of self-defense and the officer was No Billed.

As to this specific case, Texas law on self-defense does not say you have to prove self-defense. If a claim of self-defense is made, Texas law requires the DA to prove that self-defense did not exist beyond a reasonable doubt. That is for a police officers and civilians equally. A No Bill by the GJ simply means that they do not believe there’s at least probable cause to prove the accusation. A True Bill is returning an indictment. In a case such as this, if an indictment was returned the DA would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the police officers were not reasonably trying to stop deadly force against themselves. It does not matter if there were other options. It only matters that a reasonable officer faced with the same circumstances would believe that deadly force was reasonable to protect themselves. One of the officers involved I trained both in the police academy and on the streets when he was a rookie. The other officer involved, I trained him in the academy and was his supervisor but in a different agency. I have spoken with some of the officers that were familiar with the case and/or were there and work in Mid-County (who I also trained) and I believe what was reported on the news, is what happened. The police were chasing a stolen car and the car rammed the police car either intentionally or unintentionally. The deceased jumped out with a gun in his hand. I have seen all kinds of silly Facebook comments about, what was his intent by having the gun in hand or whatever. It basically does not matter. What would a reasonable officer believe faced with those circumstance where they were chasing a felon and after he is forced to stop, gets out with a gun in hand?

When the police make an arrest, with or without a warrant, they are not filing charges. They are making what is an accusation arrest. I used to hear the news media say something like, the suspect got out of jail on an accusation or accusation bond. I don’t recall them using that phrase anymore. For example a person commits a robbery and is caught by the police. The suspect is brought to jail and booked by the officer describing the probable cause as to why the officer thinks the suspect committed the crime. A judge will be in probably the next morning, read the person his rights, review the probable cause affidavit and then set bail. At that time, the DA has not reviewed the case or if a felony like a robbery, the grand jury has not heard the case. It is probably believed by many people that once the police make an arrest, charges have been filed. That is not correct. Then the investigation begins as I described above with the case being submitted to the DA for review. Sometimes a detective after gathering information about the reported crime, might submit the case to the DA recommending that no charges be filed because there is not enough evidence to prove the crime. In that case the charges are simply dropped.

All of this goes to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Unless it is specifically mentioned in the Constitution, a state can do it it wishes. I think about half the states have the grand jury process for a felony. That means that a grand jury has to return an indictment for there to be a felony charge. In some states they don’t have a grand jury or they only refer to them in maybe controversial cases. In those states the District Attorney can bring somebody up on felony charges just on his opinion. Of course probable cause is needed. I believe Florida is such a state. The George Zimmerman case I believe is a good example because the special prosecutor indicted him just on her signature. It is my opinion that she did not bring it to a grandjujury because she knows they would have no build the case and the case would have been closed. Texas is a mandatory GJ state. It also serves a somewhat political purpose in cases like this because a DA can say, I did not make the decision. The police do not bring charges on anyone. That is done through the DA. The police are just in investigative body. They take pictures, fingerprints, interview witnesses and so on. In the years I was in investigations, I would do all of that and then when I thought I had done what I could, I would present the case to the DA if I thought there was sufficient evidence to prove a case. There were three options for the district attorney after a detective submitted a case. One would be to refuse the case out right for any reason including they just don’t wish to tie up the court, they could accept the charges or they can send the case back to the detective requesting more information. Depending on that additional information, they would again either except or reject the case. If it was a misdemeanor, an assistant DA intake attorney would review the case and decide if they wish to go ahead with the charges. If the DA accepted the case from the detective and it was a felony, that means they would go forward but like mentioned, Texas is a mandatory GJ state so the DA has to accept what he believes is a good case and then present it to the GJ.

The GJ just No Billed the officers. Case closed. There will almost always be the lawsuit so the family can get as much money as they can no matter how justified.

I figure that Big girl is going out of character and just trolling. That reminds me of that joke I have said on here before. It makes it even more funny to me because it was told to me by an old Cajun I used to work for and I think English was his second language. A Louisiana sheriff stopped a guy for speeding and asked where he was from. The guy said, Chicago. The sheriff said, “Don’t lie to me boy, I see those Illinois license plates“.

They almost have to. A good attorney isn’t in the trial to be elected to office on popular opinions. He has to defend his sometimes indefensible client. He also has a reputation to maintain and ineffective counsel claims.

I am just completely guessing that some members of the jury gave no credit for her being a police officer. They gave him the max that could have been given to a civilian victim. I know that is one point the defense was making during the closing arguments. A little more nice but basically the defense attorney said why should police get extra protection. You could almost always bet that there are some cop haters on the jury. They could not deny the evidence but they could sure hold up the rest of the jury because even the punishment has to be unanimous. you could’ve had 10 jurors going for 50 years but if one or two said they would not agree to anything with more than 20 years max, then it would be a hung jury. Realistically there is a five year difference in the sentence. With the 30 year plea deal he would’ve had to do 15 calendar years to be parole eligible. With a 20 year sentence he has it in 10 years calendar year before parole eligible. If he has been in the County Jail since that night, he has almost 2 years credit. With a 20 year sentence he cannot get out on parole at the earliest before 2030. if he would have taken the plea deal, he would’ve been eligible in 2035.

Thanks. At one point early in my career a couple of officers called me a bullet magnet. In one incident on the night shift a car passed me going in the opposite direction and I heard the blast and saw the flames of probably a shotgun. I called the dreaded “shots fired” and started a pursuit. It didn’t last very long, maybe 12 blocks and we got him cornered and had guns pointed at him on a felony traffic stop. Even before the stop however, we saw what happened. It was an old junky out of tune car (back when we did tuneups) and was backfiring, blowing flames out the tailpipe. It just happened to be right next to me when it backfired so I heard the loud boom and saw the flash. it turned out just to be a drunk driver trying to get home. A couple of officers involved in the pursuit said something like, geez here we go again. 😂

The business advantage is that your weed is “better”.

It probably happens more than people think. I can think of at least 3 times that I have been shot at. I am talking about seeing the gun and flash or in one case pinned down with the rounds hitting the wall by me. I have been the supervisor on scene of at least 4 incidents of officers being fired upon including a patrol unit shot and a couple of other occasions I was a patrol officer when other officers were shot at including taking a round into the windshield. Particularly in my almost 20 years on patrol and detectives, there was not so much 24 hour news coverage and even though it did exist, everything wasn’t broadcast to the public. Even today what we see in the news is probably 5% or less of what is happening.

Not when you have an endless supply of customers. You're correct and they don’t intend to kill but it isn’t an exact science. Fentanyl is a lawfully prescribed medication but obviously extremely controlled. On the street who knows what quantity a person is getting.

Lacing drugs certainly isn’t new. Going back about 50 years where people said, this weed is “really good… uhhh…. stuff”. it was probably laced with PCP aka Angel Dust. It was a reason that some marijuana was giving that extra kick. It is like Speedballs or mixing heroin with cocaine. I think the fentanyl is being mixed with almost everything else now to multiply the effects. It is so powerful though and that’s what is causing the issues. It is like stupid powerful.

I will try to give an example of what I think would be Causation showing not guilty. The first fatal accident that I worked as a police officer was this situation. A guy is going the speed limit or nearly so in a residential neighborhood. A two year old child runs into the road between two cars and the driver probably did not even have time to see the kid. The child was killed. Did the driver kill the child? Absolutely. Was there other circumstances that caused the death? Yes. Was the driver going the speed limit the cause of death? No. Most of us probably drive through the neighborhood streets every day and we aren’t killing people. What caused the death in this case was a child running into the road in such a time and location that the driver never had a chance to stop and probably never even saw the child. Do you put him in jail for a criminal homicide in that case? No, even though he clearly killed the child, Causation shows us that he is not guilty. I believe that is the intent of the law. Now to play what if. What if the small child had been wandering down the center of the street and the man should have seen the child a block ahead of time? If the guy was intoxicated or he simply was not paying attention and he killed if the child went realistically he should have been able to stop hundred feet short of hitting the child, would he be guilty? Yes in my opinion. Both cases can be in the same neighborhood and the same child but in one case the driver had no culpability as it was not his fault that he did not see the child and in the other case it was the driver’s fault that he didn’t see the child. That is Causation. This if the section of that law. CHAPTER 6. CULPABILITY GENERALLY Sec. 6.04. CAUSATION: CONDUCT AND RESULTS. (a) A person is criminally responsible if the result would not have occurred but for his conduct, operating either alone or concurrently with another cause, unless the concurrent cause was clearly sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the actor clearly insufficient. (b) A person is nevertheless criminally responsible for causing a result if the only difference between what actually occurred and what he desired, contemplated, or risked is that: (1) a different offense was committed; or (2) a different person or property was injured, harmed, or otherwise affected.

I think their defense expert testified that she was 6%-39% likely to die had she been wearing a seatbelt. I watched that part of the trial live on YouTube. I do not know how he arrived at those numbers however at the judge pointed out, she was almost 40% chance to die anyway. So I’m thinking about 50-50. I have commented on so many different forums about this topic that can’t remember if I did so somewhere on SETXSports. It is about the definition and Penal Code section on Causation. It basically means that you can’t blame me if it would’ve happened anyway. There was an article on one of the local television stations a few days before the trial and a local attorney gave his opinion on possibly some new evidence might make a difference. I think that’s just lawyer talk (in this case) as they are paid to argue. I have no problem with them arguing, that is their job. I just did not agree in this case and listed the reasons. The judge agreed with me. I Causation says that if your act caused the result, even if combined with another cause, would it have happened anyway? Then, is it also true that the other cause would have been clearly sufficient to cause the result? The defense gave their best shot saying there was a pet cat in the car and maybe that caused her death by distraction or they didn’t swerve fast enough or they were not wearing seatbelts. The way I read Causation is this, did Torres being intoxicated and driving the wrong way on the highway and hitting the car head on cause a death? If yes (obviously), was there another cause? Sure and at the very least, seat belts. In this case, was having a pet cat in the car and not having on a seatbelt caused their death or serious injury? No. They could’ve driven around the entire shift and that would not have killed her had it not been for intoxicated driving. With no head on collision, she does not die. In this case the judge did not allow the expert witness to testify in front of the jury. The hearing I watched live was after they had removed the jury from the court room which is not uncommon during a debate what is legal procedures for evidence. Judge Steven’s statement after that testimony outside of the jury, under Causation (he read the law aloud) was about the part where it says the other circumstance was clearly sufficient to cause the result alone. As the judge noted, the defense’s own legal expert said there was almost a 40% chance she would’ve died anyway. So how can you blame not wearing a seatbelt when your own witness almost makes it a 50-50 chance she would’ve died anyway?

Some of you people….. you think that just because there are many people dead that would not have died had they not taken the vaccine, it is a reason to be skeptical of the government. Now get in line and get your boosters!!! Be glad Big Brother has the answers.

People often say that Courts legislate from the bench. I usually argue the point that they do not legislate and rule only on constitutionality or the meaning or intent of a law. In cases like this however, it is obvious that she is using a democratic opinion (vote, not party) and not the Constitution. The entire premise of having a constitutional republic with constitutional rights is so a majority cannot overcome individual rights. And easy example is, at the moment approximately 13% of the country is Black. Could the other 87% gang up on the Black population and vote that they have no civil rights and cannot sue? Sorry, you are outnumbered!!! Rights do away with public opinion or popular vote. A Supreme Court justice has as much of a constitutional right of opinion as anyone else. That should not be used in a constitutional argument about a particular law however.

While most people would agree, Texas law is set out in generalities. A third-degree felony is 2-10, second- degree is 2-20 and a first- degree 5-99. A jury or a judge gets to say what is reasonable in each case. There are some enhancements like some repeat or habitual violators where a first-degree might go up a minimum of 25 years. I hope this guy gets at least the 30 years.

Why did you shoot the man who tried to rob you 8 times? My gun was empty….

All the time…. I think I am pretty well preserved (about to be 67, still have my hair, have no facial hair and almost no wrinkles but just heavier) which can be interesting when someone remembers me but I can’t recognize what they have morphed into. That is especially true with women. Lose about 45 pounds and dye my hair and I can enroll in high school…. NOT!!

Going through it mentally before hand is sometimes way more important than shooting skills. I spent 10 years on swat, have gone to police survival schools, etc., and I heard a taught lesson which I agree with. I have seen it personally and in police shooting videos. The body will not go where the mind has not already gone. You will always think about it before the action. If you were starting from scratch like something just happened in front of you that you had never contemplated, you might hesitate a few seconds because you have not mentally prepared. You might act quickly soon after but there will be a pause while your mind races under adrenaline to figure out what is going to happen in the next two or three seconds. If you have played out a scenario in your mind a few times and gone through what you were doing, basically imagining a shoot out, then you’ll act much more instantly. Your body will not go where your mind has not previously thought about it. It can be through scenarios in your mind over a period of weeks or months or years or it could be while you pause because something just happened that you had never anticipated. You can punch all the targets in the world and thinking that the silhouette you’re shooting at is a human. In my opinion that is not sufficient enough. I have never been to infantry training but I believe that when they were told to get down like to hear incoming artillery or they hear an explosion nearby, etc., they immediately hit the ground. They don’t stand for a three or four seconds and contemplate, hmmmmmm….. is that incoming artillery and could it kill me? No, they have thought about it beforehand. In my opinion it is the same principle with shooting. I have witnessed with my owner eyes, spoken with officers who have been there and watched videos and I am convinced that thinking about shooting beforehand might be more important than practicing shooting and not thinking. Anyway, training is great but not always a necessity. I might describe in another post some of the videos that I have seen including officers getting killed and you know it by their response to the threat that they have never thought about what they might have been facing.

That is what I was thinking. Plenty of shooting but not necessarily any formal training.