tvc184

I read that his net worth goes up and down radically because of all of his ventures but has been as much recently as $300 billion. He could buy Donald Trump 30 times over.

Michael Brown redux. A gentle giant who was merely trying to explain to the officer in a calm manner but the officer refused to discuss the case and used force unnecessarily against an unarmed person who had yet to be convicted of what he was stopped for or even arrested at that point.

Because nobody died (I don't think). I get it though. Call it what it is, a crime and then move on. That does not produce Clickbait however and does not further certain narratives.

The suspect is stopped with the wrong license plate, meaning it might be a stolen vehicle. That makes it a possible felony and heightens the risk to the officer. It is not like a person will not fight over a misdemeanor because sometimes they do. It is just much more likely if a person is facing prison time to want to use all means to resist. Then the suspect adds to that by trying to get away. Stop resisting arrest or detention. It is not difficult. Make bail and go to trial two years later. For all we know, the guy might have borrowed a license plate only get a citation. The officer does not know at that point and cannot read the guy‘s mind. The the idiot videoing saying stop talking to him like that. I am assuming he is commenting to the officer but not sure. The suspect during the struggle to resist arrest gets his hands on the officer’s Taser making him a deadly risk to the officer. It is likely a legal use of force: But….. In hindsight (covered later) shooting “might have been” premature. Only because….. in calm reflection of not being in the fight, the biggest threat of the Taser is to get the wires/leads (darts which are fish hooks-I think they used to use Eagle Claw and Mustad)) attached to you. This is maybe a 95+% chance of incapacitating you. I am only going to guess that the Taser darts had been deployed during the struggle. If they had, the Taser is still a weapon but is probably not as likely to cause incapacitation. With the darts gone, is mostly a pain compliance tool at that point….. maybe. It is also entirely possible that at least one of the darts was making contact with the officer. If so, it still has incapacitation capabilities by completing the circuit by the Taser making contact with any part of the officer’s body. That is a lot of what ifs. The United States Supreme Court said in Graham v. Connor that an officer in a use of force incident should not be judged in hindsight however. They said the officer is faced with a “split-second decision”. It was a unanimous decision that it must be judged through the eyes of an officer at that time, “even if it later may seem unnecessary in the peace of the judge’s chambers”. They ruled that “totality of circumstances” (used to determine probable cause) should not be used in this kind of case but should rely on the concept of “objective reasonableness”. That is determined by an opinion of, what would a reasonable officer determine faced with the same set of circumstances and who has to make that split second decision. The unanimous decision clearly showed that it is easy to sit in a judge’s chamber six months later and say something differently could’ve happened when sitting in the peace of the situation you are not faced with that life-threatening situation. It is easy to look back in a calm reflection and to say, maybe I could’ve done something differently. So without calm reflection of looking back at the video and not being involved, would a reasonable officer feel that he might be in danger of serious injury or death? Remember that the use of deadly force in self-defense, including by a civilian, does not require you to be in danger of only death but also a serious injury which could be a broken bone. At least going by Texas law I would say that it is likely justified.

With for a minute being the key phrase.

If it gets any tougher for BU…..

The problem with a lot of discussions/arguments are when a person/group defines, creates or redefines (changes) a word or phrase. If you don’t like a response to a discussion or can’t figure out a valid or plausible argument, change something. So you get critical race theory, white privilege, minorities can’t be racist and so on. I will give an example. A person will call out any minority for being a racist for words or actions. Like a Black person (the NY subway shooter) might say “I hate all White people”, the commit some evil act. There is no valid response nor should there be ask to why that pressure is not a racist. If a White person said I hate all Black people and started shooting them, we would obviously call that an act driven by racism. It would not even be a debate nor should there be. With no plausible response as to why it is not racism for a Black person to start targeting White persons, in comes the change. I have many times heard/seen the claim that minorities can’t be racist because… they were never on top or in charge!! Who came up with that definition? An online dictionary gives this: prejudice, discrimination or antagonism toward people of a specific racial or ethnic group. I guess they forgot to add…. but this definition only applies to White people. So when you can’t think of a good answer, change the rules. You can go to any forum, including this one, and sometimes see such redefining or inventing of terms. It is difficult sometimes on both sides of the fence for people to admit that everyone is basically the same. The main difference is the arguments created to prove that their side is more righteous and will do so by any means. That includes at times, changing language.

It is pure political BS and that includes the police administration and their city administration. I thought that yesterday when they had no idea his motive but KNEW it wasn’t terrorism. I think it didn’t fit their wishes, likely due to a racial component.

But then the rocks will be offended.

Wait, voluntary laws don’t work?

That reminds me of a case…. At the time I was a commander of the street crimes/gang unit. As part of that we sometimes ran prostitution stings. On one such occasion we arrested a woman for prostitution. She was wearing a loose dress but had no underwear of any kind. Normally after we made the arrest, the undercover officers would call in a marked patrol unit to transport the women prisoners. While waiting on a patrol car in this particular case, the woman said I really need to go to the bathroom bad but she was standing at the rear of our undercover unit in handcuffs. With that and she spread her legs about 3 feet apart and…… Splat, splat, splat….. Not to think that was as bad as it could get, she was crying about how upset she was and how bad she feels, she turned around with her bare feet and stepped right in the middle of it. Yep, stuff squishing up between her toes. The uniform patrol officer got there and had a comment like, you’ve got to be kidding me. He said I will be right back and came back about five minutes later. While riding around the area he saw where someone had bought a washing machine and the box was out by the road. He flattened it out and put it in the backseat of the Patrol unit and she sat on that to go to the police station. The things we see and deal with.

I would hate to be that arresting officer…..

We might not agree with the law but it is the law. The police can’t enact their own law and arrest people because they don’t like it. That appears to be exactly what happened in this case. I would go as far as to say that she should get a lot of money for unlawful arrest for a crime that does not exist and potentially charges filed on some of the officers for Official Oppression. Texas still has a law on the books that says it isn’t lawful to burn an American or Texas flag. The United States Supreme Court said that is unconstitutional. If somebody is making a lawful First Amendment protest and I arrest that person knowing or should know that I’m violating his/her rights, even though I don’t agree with that ruling, should I pay for that unlawful arrest?

In his first presidential election, Obama got 69 million votes. In his reelection he lost 3 million votes becoming only the second president to win reelection while being less popular in the last hundred years at least. The only other example I could find was the fourth term of President FDR. I don’t recall mid Romney being hated like you claim about Trump or everybody hates him but in his first presidential campaign, Trump got more votes than Romney. In his 2020 reelection bid, Trump got 5 million more votes than Obama ever got. All the Democrats turned out for what would be the historic first black president and yet Trump got 5 million more votes in his reelection campaign than Obama in his first. In fact Trump increased his votes from 2016 to 2020 by 12,000,000 more votes. While Obama lost 3 million votes in his reelection, Trump gained 12 million. Yes, Biden won, I think entirely due to Covid shutting down the nation for a year. In fact, Trump got the second most votes ever of any person in American history. Trump got more votes than Reagan and Clinton in their re-election bids….. combined. Imagine what he would’ve gotten if “most people” didn’t hate him. I think if the election was held again today, this most hated guy would be the winner.

Back in the days of Pagers….. I am talking the “cool” new age Pagers with alpha numeric where you could actually type about a three line message. I was on the swat team back then and we thought technology had come basically to an end. Normally when we got a swat call out for hostage or something like that from our “old” pagers, we would get the police department dispatch number followed by – 911. With the new alpha numeric pagers we could get an actual address and may be a brief description like hostage or barricaded suspect. But that’s not the story… the new style pager is. A person had their car broken into, I believe in Nederland. Stolen out of the auto burglary (felony back then) was one of the alpha numeric pages. The person/victim had the phone number written on the back of the pager however. The victim of the crime worked for one of the local EMS companies. I am assuming that it was standard that when the EMS company needed overtime, they would send out a group text saying something like, anyone wanting to work the night shift please call. Well that group text also went to the pager that was stolen and the person in possession of it saw the message. This person (suspect) thought, what great technology, now they are advertising jobs on pagers. She thought it was an advertisement for some company looking for Night Shift workers. So….. she called the number and said I would like to inquire about a job opening on the Night Shift. A quick thinking EMS dispatcher knew that a Pager had been stolen and ask the suspect, what pager number are you calling for. Of course the suspect complied and said I am calling from Pager number xxx-xxxx whatever. The dispatch put the suspect on hold and went and told the facility manager. The dispatcher then got back on the phone with the suspect and said can you be here at 4 o’clock for an interview. They have set up an impromptu sting. They called the police and we were waiting inside the manager’s office. Being a good prospective employee, the suspect showed up several minutes early and was told to go into the managers office. She did. When she looked at our officers said something like, “Uh oh!”. I was working that day but unfortunately not at the scene but I talk to the officers and read the report. So the suspect was using a stolen Pager and thought she was going to get a job and ended up setting up her own arrest.

Good move. Musk turned it down as it would restrict how many shares he could own.

That didn’t take long. Charges dropped because…. SHE DIDN’T BREAK THE LAW!! [Hidden Content] Maybe I need to go into consulting… or perhaps tell some south Texas to Police to pull out the Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedures on occasion. ….and like I said earlier, hire a plaintiff’s attorney as soon as possible to start the lawsuit for unlawful arrest.

Influence? It’s so they can vote online in the next election…..

A 5th grade teacher gives her students an assignment for the weekend. Think of something that happened in your family and you could use an idiom or a parable to describe it. Monday rolled around and that teacher started calling on different students. She asked Sally if she could think of something that happened in her family. Sally said her family owned some chickens and every weekend they go to the farmers market to sell them. One weekend they had all of the eggs in one box in the back of the truck. Her father hit a big pothole and the box fell on the road and broke. Her idiom was, don’t put all your eggs in one basket. The teacher said, that’s a good one. The teacher then called on Tommy. Tommy said that his father always caught a lot of fish. This weekend he went with his father for the first time do you learn how to fish. Tommy said that he ended up catching almost as many fish as your father. The teacher asked, what was the parable. Tommy’s father told him that he’s just a chip off the old block. The teacher cringed but eventually had to call on Little Johnny. Little Johnny said… My Uncle Bob was a fighter pilot in Vietnam. One day he was shot down and as he was about to bail out of his jet he grabbed a fifth of whiskey, a machine gun and a machete. As he was floating down in the parachute, uncle Bob saw 200 enemy soldiers waiting on him. He quickly drank the fifth of whiskey and then used the machine gun to kill 100 of the enemy troops on his way down. He ran out of bullets when he hit the ground and kill 75 of them with a machete but then it broke. He then killed the last 25 with his bare hands. The teacher said, OH MY GOSH….. but after thinking about it for a couple of minutes asked Little Johnny, but what is the parable? Little Johnny said, “Don’t £#@& with Uncle Bob when he’s been drinking”.

Unless they change the law, absolutely. It seems rather clear to me, the mother cannot be charged. Which makes me wonder what is happening in this case. Did the police not read the law? Did the DA not step in? It appears to me that she was arrested and is being held for a criminal law that does not exist.

There is no conundrum. It looks like an unlawful arrest. 1. This has nothing to do with the new law which allows a person to sue. 2. Texas law clearly states that this is not Murder. She should get a lawyer and sue the heck out of them. This is not even a defense to prosecution where an arrest is lawful but the person can attempt to prove not guilty at a trial. An example is self defense where an arrest and trial are lawful but the law says there are some justifications if you can prove show evidence of self defense. In Chapter 19 of the Penal Code it simply says that the law doesn’t apply to the mother… PERIOD! This is the law. It says “this chapter” (Meaning nothing in the Homicide chapter) does not apply to the mother of an unborn child. That means anything in the chapter. It can be intentional, it can be reckless or whatever… It does not apply to the mother. Hopefully she gets quickly released and gets her a good lawyer. 19.06. APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONDUCT. This chapter does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is: (1) conduct committed by the mother the unborn child;

No articles but I could tell about some incidents….

You use two different people’s opinions to show hypocrisy? Just for sake of the discussion, a death sentence is carried out on a person convicted of a heinous crime of taking another human life. A baby in the womb has committed the heinous crime of….. what?

Your conservative wokeism gets the best of and sometimes emotionally blinds you. Yes SCOTUS has overturned itself. Also, it has modified (not completely reversed) itself at other times. In fact it has modified Roe already. That situation happened in Casey. Roe as was originally written was changed under Casey. Some of the current cases aren’t asking to overturn all rules not established under Roe (such as the current Dobbs case in Mississippi). This Court might use Casey and the established undue burden standard to uphold Dobbs (Mississippi 15 weeks limit) or they can set another limit of viability (I don’t expect that) or overturn Roe completely (which seems a long shot but within possibility) looking at the oral arguments/discussions. It seems very likely that Dobbs 15 weeks limit might be upheld using Casey which already allowed Pennsylvania to go outside of Roe. As far as SCOTUS overturning or modifying itself, one of the most famous cases was Plessy v. Ferguson where SCOTUS said that the 14th Amendment under equal protection was not violated if Black and Whites had given “separate but equal” privileges. That as most people are at least responsibly familiar with, was overturned in Brown v. BoE where SCOTUS threw out separate but equal. Another which directly had an effect on my job was Grady v. Corbin. Under Grady (1990) SCOTUS ruled that double jeopardy stopped any subsequent prosecutions if the same elements for which a person was previously convicted were used for the subsequent conviction. In that case Corbin was intoxicated and crossed into oncoming traffic and killed a person. Corbin was issued citations for crossing the centerline and DWI. He pleaded guilty so was considered convicted. He was later indicted and convicted of the fatality. SCOTUS overturned the conviction and said that Corbin could not be charged with crossing into oncoming traffic and killing someone because he was already convicted of crossing into oncoming traffic. We were immediately told by the DA to not issue citations in DWI cases or file any misdemeanor charges where a felony had also occurred for fear of losing the felony case. That had a huge impact on our protocol. That last all of 3 years when SCOTUS said basically….. that was really a dumb decision we made in Corbin and overturned it in US v. Dixon. So your premise of, SCOTUS doesn’t overturn or modify itself is dead in the water and they have already done so on Roe as they did in Casey. As far as your last question, you are again showing your emotions and prejudice. You apparently love Roe and have crafted a, “this case ends the debate” scenario (if a favorable to Roe ruling). First, these cases, including Texas (SB8 which I disagree with), I’m not asking to overtime Roe. Your stating that the cases look to overturn Roe are simply wrong. The cases like Dobbs look to modify viability or undue burden of a right. You have narrowly crafted the “overturn” scenario, not the state laws or SCOTUS. Under Roe states were only allowed to completely ban abortions (except danger to mother) in the third trimester. These current cases are asking to not overturn abortions but back up the time frame where a state can sanction limits.

If it is settled, why does the SCOTUS have 3 cases currently pending a ruling? It sure doesn’t sound settled.