tvc184

A 17 year old in Texas is not a juvenile. Terroristic Threat is a misdemeanor. Being kicked out of school has no known tracking record that I have ever heard of that would show up on a background check. Part of a problem (not necessarily shootings) in general is that schools at least in my experience, either cover up or fail to report or take action on crimes. As an example, I was working at a school as an off duty job and witnessed an assault. It was not even a fight but just an assault. A teacher tried to step between two students and one reached over the teacher and hit the other one face. Student that got hit was being intimidated by the other or basically bullied. After my partner and I arrested the 18 year old student, the school officials tried to intervene, have us let the guy go and allow them to handle it. Uhhhhhh…… no. I believe that is a regular occurrence. Right or wrong? We can argue the point but it happens and probably way more than anyone can guess.

…. And the consequences for hitting her is a class A misdemeanor. If they “threw the book at him”, the maximum is “up to” one year in jail and/or “up to” a $4000 fine. So the minimum has to be at least a $1 fine or at least one day in jail. So a judge or jury can say, we find you guilty and sentence you to one day in jail or we fine you $1.

I knocked the crap out of a woman one time. I hit her hard enough that it knocked the curlers from her hair. It looked like a mushroom ring in the front yard. I don’t exactly remember but I think I might have slapped the heck out of her daughter. We were trying to arrest a guy who ran from a stolen car. As one officer was trying to put handcuffs on him in the front yard, mama came up behind the officer can try to grab him by the neck. I hit her so her daughter (who I think was 16 years old and about 180 pounds) grabbed me by the hand to keep me for my resting her mother. She grabbed onto my thumb to pull me away and dislocated it. A female trying to choke my partner and another dislocating my thumb qualified for being hit in my opinion.

You are pretty much correct. We don’t have to actually see a person drive but….. We can justify an arrest if for example an accident just happened and we can find evidence that he was driving. In police or DA language (cop talk) we call it putting him behind the wheel. It can be from witnesses, physical evidence, still in seatbelt, video, etc. There was video of the guy but does it prove his level of intoxication? A guy at home a day or even an hour later? No. It is near impossible to prove that he wasn’t just tired and had a beer or two and then went home and was worried about the accident and started drinking. Drinking after an accident can not be used as evidence in DWI.

More wokism…...

An interesting take on history (woke or revisionist?)…. [Hidden Content]

He is still pretty far left. He apparently still has the ability to see the utter BS that is taking place. Much of what the Democrats are backing is utter BS and he knows it. Good for him for saying some things but his political stance hasn’t changed.

Yeah, he’s an idiot

Yes, mob mentality rules. Everybody is a legal expert.

I saw yesterday when they finally got around to mentioning what happened. I will applaud them in this case for not jumping to conclusions.

Correct. Given the option of background checks or a required school to allow you to even purchase a gun and annual mandatory training and permit…. I would opt for the background check before I buy a firearm.

Again, the most interesting part of the story is the Facebook posts. He beat up a child…. No, he assaulted an adult. His bond is too low of a fine for that …. No, bail is earnest money to return to court. I can’t believe a felony but such a low bond…. That’s because it was a misdemeanor. And so forth being repeated over and over.

Not really even debatable. I mean the police have to look at it because maybe the guy that did the shooting was part of the robbery and saw was going bad and so on. Once you find out it actually is a bystander, case closed.

The best part was on the Facebook, I don’t have any clue about the law, comments. All of the sidewalk lawyer saying he’s not allowed to do that, he was not an employee, a person has to threaten you personally, and blah blah blah.

Yes. Leaning through the drive through window he shot both robbers. One died and one survived and I believe was just sentenced.

Have y’all seen the video released a month or two ago about the same thing happening in Port Arthur at the Church‘s Chicken?

I have a question for those that may know…. Let’s say a school goes to a single entry point with metal detectors and security. Let’s say that teachers and administrators also have to go through the safe security. If there is no such single point security with metal detectors, it is not a big deal however…… Let’s say a teacher is carrying a concealed weapon completely legally in Texas both with the consent of the school district and principal and also with additional training in the Texas school marshal program. Does the teacher carry the gun on his person or bring it in before the school year starts and leave it locked away, never to retrieve it to go in and out of the school, check it periodically as should be, etc. What I am getting at is that if that teacher goes through the security, it will light up like a Christmas tree and part of the program is basically anonymity. So do all teachers get a pass and not go through security since one or more of them may or may not be armed? I am assuming that only students are visitors and not faculty and staff have to go through security: I am just wondering, if only “certain” teachers were allowed to go around security, it might not take long to lose that anonymity.

Check out this retired Marine’s opinion on what gun laws should be. Compare that to an actor. If you had to choose between them, which proposal would you go with?

[Hidden Content]

And to show the opposite effect from Uvaldi, about 70% of the comments were something like, now that is how you protect a school. The problem is that they have no idea what happened but it is acceptable to kill the guy trying to pull out on door. Hopefully there is nothing to this and the guy tried to pull a gun or something like that and this is a clear cut case of self-defense for the officer(s). At this point however it has kind of a lynch mob mentality feel to it.si

Uvalde backlash? Justified? It is way too early to tell reading some of the reports, (knowing the media could be absolutely bogus) the man was acting strangely so the police shot him. This is the best I could tell from the several articles I have read but like always, the story may change or more details coming out. A man goes to an Elementary school which gladly has the doors locked. He’s yelling something and trying to get in and when he can’t he goes around the school and tries other doors. The articles keep using the term, aggressively trying to get in the door. Does that mean pulling or yanking hard, trying to pry it open or what? There is a police officer inside and saw what was happening. He called for back up from the city police. There was some kind of struggle outside of the school and the man was shot and killed. So far there has been no mention of any weapons or any threats, just a man acting strangely and pulling on doors. Maybe the shooting had nothing to do with the school and the doors. Maybe he was an angry parent and wanted to confront the principal but was not armed and was not making any threats. When the police tried to detain him for maybe disturbing the peace, he might’ve tried to grab an officer’s gun.. Realistically that would have nothing to do with the school and could have been on a person stopped for jaywalking. But I have yet to find any details of what actually happened. I have seen more than 100 comments on various forums. One on a local Facebook forum said shoot and ask questions later. Is that the Uvalde backlash? If an angry parent goes to school, are some police officers going to gun that person down in order to not be second-guessed and called a coward in the media? Maybe when we find out what happened, if ever, perhaps it will be a justified shooting that is not even really debatable. Without those details however it gives me a moment to pause and wonder if this is a response by going entirely in the other direction, shoot and then find out if it was justified. In my career I have seen upset parents argue with school officials. Although always aware of what might happen, I have never been in a situation that even seem close to pulling out a weapon, much less killing someone in those situations. [Hidden Content]

When kids are getting mowed down in the school, I wonder if that teacher would mind another teacher being armed? Here is this scenario with that teacher you spoke who of is adamantly against teachers being armed. Two years later a guy walks into the school and start shooting outside of that teacher’s room. The “I don’t like other teachers with guns” teacher is frozen in terror but sees a teacher from across the hall step out and shoots and kills the suspect who only managed to kill one student and injured another. Instead of several dozen injuries and deaths, it is over. The one who said, I don’t like other teachers to be on, should say: 1. I am so glad that the other teacher was armed. 2. I realized that countless children's lives were saved but it was wrong for that teacher to be armed and to step out and end the threat so quickly. I wish that we had not allowed guns in school.

That is because it now violates their rights to put them in an institution.

OK, anybody but Trump. Everybody understands that. But when you would vote for anyone but Trump, no matter the candidate, why the old white guy? The anybody but Trump attitude makes the Democrats look even more stupid. Here is what that basically means. Trump is so bad that I would vote for a semi-intelligent octopus. Okay, awesome. The Democrats are always pushing any kind of minority, regardless of qualifications. Look at the current Press Secretary. She walks out to take the job for the first day and announces that she’s a quadruple minority. Everything since then appears to have been a disaster. Now they are having guest speakers such as a Korean boys group, a movie star to talk about gun control, etc. and then running her out the door. But OK, if that and what do you want go for it. So here is the scenario. Anybody we put up against Trump will probably win. We don’t have that semi intelligent octopus but we have a female pacific islander/Asian who is a Hindu. We have a male who is the mayor of a large city and he has a husband. We have black female counterpart to Bill Clinton. The list was long and varied. According to the Democrats, anybody could’ve beat in Trump. What a great chance to get someone in there other than a white male. ANYBODY but Trump WILL WIN!!! But who did the rank and file Dems choose when it could have been “anybody”? No, the anybody but Trump argument doesn’t make the Democrats look smart, he makes them look stupid. Not because they wanted someone else but because they could have put in anyone else and chose not to.

Yes, these aren’t road rage. This shooter is supposed to have started making comments about shooting up a school four years ago. That is the problem with a person that has time to plan. He can pick his target, decide when he wants to hit it, have back up plans, decide how he wants to commit his carnage like what weapons, etc.