tvc184

Let’s play devils’s advocate or my favorite game, “what if”. Let’s forget the felony car chase, let’s forget the ramming of a police car…. An officer on patrol sees a very minor violation like maybe a pedestrian walking on the edge of the roadway when there’s a sidewalk. The officer gets out of his car and tells the guy, can you come over here for a minute. The guy starts walking toward the officer without saying anything and pulls out a knife as he continues to approach the officer or he looks at the officer and reaches in his pocket and pulls out a pistol. In either situation, the officer might be dead within the next two seconds. Should officer before he responds, ask the guy if he really intends to do anything? In a similar “what if”, it is 2 AM and someone is kicking on your front door and you’re afraid the door is about to be broken and allow entry. A guy is screaming let me in. In self defense you fire through the door as the door is almost but not quite open. The guy is now dead. Clearly this is a case of self defense under Texas law. BUT…… what if? You find out after he is dead that it is your drunk neighbor who came home late, had the wrong house and simply thinks his wife locked him out of the house? Should you now go to jail for murder?

In that situation, in my opinion, absolutely.

And I could give other stories that I personally witnessed. I can assure you this was not an isolated incident at the time. Due to media attention in the last couple of decades, I hope it has improved dramatically but…… I know that even locally, some police departments have dedicated mental health officers and units. I know that they work closely with some facilities. Should mental health be the responsibility of the police? That is a great debate nationwide but for now I can assure you that the police are in the front line. When something goes wrong, it is the police who get the finger pointed at them. I wish that the media would ask some more in-depth questions and do some serious investigations.

It would depend on state law but likely nothing. From reading the articles, by Illinois state law you apparently must have an ID card that allows you to possess a firearm. Since the shooter was under 21 at the time, his father signed off on the shooter’s ability to possess a firearm and purchase a rifle lawfully. It was after shooter had made threats of suicide and threatened his family. The media is naturally seems making a big issue of this. Here are a couple of questions that they should ask if they did real reporting. Although he may have had possession of the rifle a couple of years ago, he was now of age and could have applied for and received the same ID with no official criminal or mental record anyway. Would it have mattered if he purchased the rifle two years ago with his father cosigning or two months ago without that endorsement needed? My answer would be obviously no. The second question that needed to be asked, could he have bought the rifle unlawfully on the streets since it appears as though he had been planning this for a couple of years? Since this is Illinois, look at the hundreds of shootings every month in Chicago. Are those shootings all with lawfully purchased weapons? Again the answer in probably 99.9% of the cases would be no. Being “unlawful” sure hasn’t stop the shootings. When someone is willing to Murder another person, what law will stop it? Which always goes back to what was asked after Uvalde. Can you ever stop a person on a mission who has time to plan his attack? As far as Texas law, a police officer can take a person into custody for a mental evaluation and the person could be held for up to 72 hours, simply on the officer’s testimony alone: Texas police officer can also take a person into the same kind of custody on information given by a credible person. The police officer has no say so on what happens after the person is delivered to a mental health facility howe. In the 15 years that I was on actual patrol duty (then detectives and later supervision), I signed a few mental health commitments. I have seen the treatment of mentally impaired persons and it described in some cases as despicable. Has it changed today? Locally the governments (county) contracts mental health services. It is been several years since I was on patrol and I’m sure that improvements have been made however….. sometimes when you’re paying people to do an unpleasant tasks, they might be less than willing to do a thorough job. It’s not like going to Market Basket and if they treat people like crap, they will lose all their customers and go out of business. I will give an example that I witnessed personally. There was a middle-aged man who was really depressed and threatening suicide. He might have been more depressed than anyone I’ve personally dealt with. I signed for a mental evaluation and I brought him to the contract facility. Normally there is a employee who screens the committed person. In my experience, at least at that time, it was not a doctor either as a psychiatrist or a psychologist. On this particular occasion it was during regular business hours like about 3:30 in the afternoon and the head of the facility, an MD/psychiatrist, was actually there. When I was bringing the person in for evaluation, the doctor stop and asked what was going on and I told him. He said that he would screen the man himself. So far the only time in my career, we actually went into the office of the administrator. The man who had threatened suicide was still in handcuffs as an active threat. The doctor asked him this…. Who is the president? The man answered correctly. He was then asked, who was the president before that? The man answered correctly. One more question, what is 100 - 5? The man said 95. The doctor told me, this man is nor crazy (he actually used the term) , we are not going to accept him. My response was that I never claimed he was crazy, he was going through a mental crisis. The doctor’s attitude was kind of like, oh well. So in front of the doctor I asked the man in handcuffs, do you feel like killing yourself? He said yes. I said okay, stand up and turn around, I’m taking my handcuffs off right there in a doctor’s office. When the doctor questioned what I was doing, I told him that my lawful authority had ended because he doctor had just claimed that the man was okay. To keep him in custody any longer would be violating his rights. I then gave my commentary, he will probably run out and kill himself on the street in front of your facility by jumping in front of a car or not maybe grab a hostage. When that happens, I am going to swear under oath that you said he was okay because he knew what 100-5 was. I actually started taking the handcuffs off and the doctor looked like he kind of panicked. He gave me the, hold up a minute. He asked the guy a couple more questions something like how depressed are you and do you feel like you could kill yourself or someone else? When the guy answered, the doctor said that they would except him as a patient. Go figure…. So when you ask, what could law of force when have done? Again it depends on state law but probably like me, they can bring attention to a situation but not being medical professionals, they cannot act on it. That is kind of what the officer in the story you posted was saying. The police can do their job but does that force someone else to do theirs?

Stolen car, chase, rams police car, comes out with a gun….. That is what I have read. Obviously we do not know if that is true but more than likely there is video of the whole thing. Assuming it is true, especially the part about stepping out with a gun, then it would likely be a lawful use of force. Even if you want to run or fight to get away, to step out with a gun in hand after committing a felony is almost a guaranteed conclusion.

His only saving grace at the moment is Kamala Harris. The Dems are in a quandary at the moment. Anything is subject to change at a moments notice depending on any event however. I think it was Jim Clyburn out of SC that I saw a week or two ago talking about Harris in the upcoming presidential election. He was given some credit for Biden‘s victory by delivering SC in the election. His comment was something like, we got Biden elected but it was time for him to go and it is Kamala's turn. That demonstrates the problem. When a prominent Democrat goes on record pushing for a black female and probably somewhat as a payback, it might be hard for the Democrats to go against him and her. That tends to make me think that the next Democrat in the presidential election will be either Biden or Harris and either can be big problems. Harris if so disliked by her own party that she could not even get about 3% of the popular vote from Democrats and had to drop out at the beginning of the primary season. Her serving as VP could tend to overcome earlier non support but her performance has hurt her image, not helped it. So now they have a guy that is showing signs of dementia and his vice president waiting in the wings in a position that will make it hard for the Democratic leadership to go against her. Which Democrat is going to go on record going against the first Black female VP and then have to debate her she blast her in stage?

You got it. That is what I was talking about. We have no evidence that he did but…

Yeah, can’t rule out leaves everyone open to every potential accusation. We can’t rule out that a person posting in this thread is not a child molester…… It reminds me of the Mueller report on Trump collusion with Russia. We cannot rule out the Trump was illegally involved with Russia, we just can’t find any evidence to prove it. I guess with the rationale of some people reading this forum, everybody is guilty of everything until it can be proven otherwise.

Very stupid questions. What next, which city eats the most celery per capita?

And that is the consistency of the method.

It isn’t really a time matter. Steaks don’t take long whether grilled, on cast iron or slightly slower, reverse sear then oven finish. Sous vide obviously isn’t for everyone but any real time is about 5 minutes of setup a couple of hours before you eat. The benefit is the temperature you want it such as warm red center and nailing it every time. Then throughout the steak. Oh yeah, and tender. If you want to grind your teeth into a steak in order to eat it, don’t use sous vide I can sometimes knock it out of the park in cast iron coming straight from the fridge. That used to be my preferred method. But sometimes…….. About a year ago I had a couple of ribeye steaks that I was going to make sous vide the next day. My wife on a spur of the moment decided she wanted them today. No resting, no waiting for it to come to room temperature or anything else. Just SPG and straight to the pan. It was a home run, deep into the upper pavilion in the outfield. (left field side) I tried it a couple of weeks later and overcooked it to medium and not medium rare. It wasn’t bad but it could have been a good bit better.

Watch the video at least to about the 5:20 mark to see the finished steaks. They did ribeye and picanha. This was sous vide at 129° and then finished over charcoal for a sear. Whether you like it rare or it maybe 135° for medium rare or 140° for medium, look at the consistency of the steak throughout. Look at how juicy.

Sous vide is for perfection. The example a steak 1.25” to 1.5” thick cooked exactly medium rare edge to edge. There is no trick or grill-master secret to cooking medium well to well done. Just keep cooking by any method until most of the juices are cooked out. I grew up eating well done T-bone steaks that my parents could afford about once a month and they were about 1/4 inch thick. A little bit of salt and plenty of black pepper and they were quite tasty. An inch and a half steak cooked like that would be shoe leather in my opinion. If someone likes it like that, great. There is no trick to cooking it however. Rare, medium rare and medium or a completely different issue. There are all kinds of methods to try and get the perfect medium rare steak as an example but not many people can do it every time or maybe even consistently. If someone can then that is awesome. Over a charcoal flame, in a cast-iron skillet, on a griddle, reverse sear in an oven, etc. There are plenty of methods however heat and timing are critical. If the cook time is too short, you have it more rare than you wanted. If it’s too long then it might be more cooked and tough than what you wanted. And is your cast iron skillet is your cast iron skillet 350° or 450°? If you’re going by timing, that matters. Even for a perfectly cooked medium rare steak over charcoal or on cast-iron, maybe the center 1/8 inch to 1/4 inch might be medium rare. On either side of that it goes from well done at the surface to medium well to medium and fades into medium rare. So if you have a 1.25”thick steak, about 1/4 inch is what you were looking for. With sous vide it is about 1.25”‘medium rare or all the way through. There is no guesswork for doneness. Even though his method in the video is crude and absolutely not exact, what the guy did was correct. The bag keeps the meat sealed and the water controls the temperature throughout the steak. In a real sv cooker, you control the temperature to the degree. If you want to set the temperature about 128° - 130° for rare, set it and forget it or 134° - 136° for medium rare and so on. The steak can never cook more than the temperature of the water surrounding it. The timing is also not critical. I could leave a sv steak in the water cooking for 90 minutes and up to about three hours. The steak will never get hotter and it will never cook anymore than the temperature you set it for. It will get more tender the longer you cook but that could be a bad thing. Cooking a sv ribeye for about five hours might turn it almost into baby food because it gets so tender. Let’s say for example somebody wants to eat about 5:30 PM. At about 2:45 PM to throw some steaks in the sous vide cooker and walk away. At 5:30 PM people are not ready so you just leave them in the water bath. 6 PM rolls around and people are ready, take the steaks out and sear them for a few seconds and they are ready to go. Try that with a reverse sear a steak in the oven or throw some steaks on the pit expecting company to be there in 5 PM and….. they aren’t but the steaks have already been cooked. With sv, take the steaks out, pat them dry on the outside and then sear by whatever method you wish. You want some charcoal glowing white and want to toss the steaks on the flame for a few seconds to get that char on the outside, do it. A screaming hot cast-iron skillet for about 20 seconds on each side, go for it. The internal part of the state, literally edge to edge besides this year you put on the outside, will be whatever doneness you wanted. That is long winded but what is the advantage? The temperature in the middle of the steak is done exactly the same every time and throughout the complete steak not just a little strip in the center.

Yeah but he paid $20 extra for the bone and then threw the bone away.

Imagine that, people are committing crime without having to worry about facing consequences. You reap what you sow. They have to look no farther than in their own mirror. Maybe Mayor Lightfoot from Chicago and Mayor Cantrell from New Orleans can meet up and strategize on what is working in their cities. The rest of us can take notes from the meeting because obviously they have things well in hand.

You can sous vide and char broil. This guy’s technique sucks but…….. If you do a sous vide correctly, you can finish it by charring on a grill, over charcoal, in a cast-iron skillet, or steel skillet with a torch. I found a little bit of humor that you pay a good bit extra for a tomahawk steak because of the long bone but then this guy cuts off the bone.

I haven’t cooked sous vide in…. 3 days.

That…. Is… HILARIOUS.

Nope because DeSantis is sitting out there waiting….

That is since bs questions. Citizenship: How much pizza does Americans eat Where was the first Ferris wheel built? I could go on but really?

The GOP needs to win 6 more House seats and one more Senate seat to take over both houses. Neither party in the foreseeable future will ever have enough to override a veto.

The president doesn’t put forth legislation. Legislators do. I think in the last Texas legislative session in 2021, the governor made a statement that if you send me a pro gun bill, I will sign it. He does not submit bills, he does not debate bills and he does not vote on bills.. That is not his function. He can let his feelings known however. Several pro gun legislation bills were sent to him and he signed each one. If they could not have come to an agreement, he could not have signed any of them but that is not because he did not wish to. Governor Abbott is just lucky that for the moment Texas has a super majority of Republicans. I could assure you there are many pieces of legislation that if they would have gotten to Trump’s desk, he would have signed them. I could assure you that if the Republicans had a super majority in Congress, like Obama had for his first two years (which lost him control for his remaining 6 years), they would have been stacking bills on Trump’s desk. A super majority that the Democrats had for the two years which is almost unheard of history, was completely squandered because of Democrats pushed Obamacare which a majority of the public was against. I guess I’m glad because much of what they wanted to do, they were not able to because they were so wrapped up pushing their disastrous healthcare bill. How divisive was Obamacare from the Public’s opinion? The Democrats held 255 seats in the House when Obama came into office and the Republicans had 180. The Democrats had a stunning 75 seat majority. Right after Obamacare passed, the midterms came up. The Republicans went from 180 seats to 240. The Democrats Dropped to 191. Currently the Democrats hold the House by 10 positions. The Republicans have to win six of those seats to take back control. The first two years of the Obama presidency they lost over 60 seats. If the Dems lose at least six seats, nothing will pass legislation for the next two years without Republican approval. If so we will see how Biden does in signing laws that never make it to his desk.

Everything is brought up in Court. When is debatable.

The reason I do not believe you are entirely correct is because that government could not operate. Even a city has a city manager that is hired by the city Council to basically do the day-to-day operations of the city. Can you imagine having to convene a city Council meeting for every decision have to be made? Look at a city the size of Beaumont. There are a couple of openings in the public works department. The manager of public works hires two people and the city manager approves. But wait, the city Council has to be called Into session to debate and have a vote whether those two people could be hired. In the same week however there are five new employees in the water department, four new police officers, two new firefighters, five roads that needs to be repaired, etc.Even in a small city, government operations would have to completely shut down if every single issue had to be debated. People or commissioners have to be given the authority to act without calling for an act of Congress. Another example is the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission. They have been given the authority by the Texas legislature, signed into law by the governor, to regulate hunting and fishing licenses, bag and size limits, etc. Can you imagine calling the legislature back into a special session every time there is a devastating freeze that damages the fish population of South Texas or something similar? Then you are going to have a bunch of locally elected politicians the say what fish limits and size should be? There is some information that just came in about possible violent protests tomorrow in a city. The police chief who has the authority decides to put extra officers on the street just in case. No, let’s contact the city Council and have them convene at 2 AM the day before the protests, that we just found out about, and see if they wish to pay the overtime. No. They give that authority to an appointed government body or person.